Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Invalid Carriages

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that users in the Shrewsbury area of Delta invalid cars supplied by his Department have to be sent to Bilston, Staffordshire, for minor repairs; and whether he will take steps to arrange repair facilities in Shrewsbury.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): No, Sir. Minor repairs can already be carried out in Shrewsbury.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Could my hon. Friend tell me the distinction between major and minor repairs, because this and other matters relevant to these tricycles should be given the widest possible publicity in the interests of users?

Mr. Braine: I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Work costing

less than £10 in labour charges can be done in any garage, and there are at least two garages in Shrewsbury which can handle this work. I have sent particulars to my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to make an annual cash allowance to invalids entitled to an invalid car from his Department, who buy their own cars because of the need to have a passenger travelling with them, equivalent to the annual cost of providing them with invalid cars.

Mr. Braine: No, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend give me the reasons for not accepting what I, at any rate, think is a very fair suggestion? Will he give an undertaking to look again at the whole question?

Mr. Braine: The reason is that my right hon. Friend has no power to give cash allowances to National Health Service patients. His function is to provide services. While I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend is making, I hardly think that it would be right to give priority to this benefit over other claims on any additional money which might be made available for transport for the disabled. The answer to the second question is "Yes".

Public Health Inspectors

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to ensure that there are enough public


health inspectors to deal with the work involved in slum clearance and multi-occupied houses.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health what steps he intends to take to secure the trained public health inspectors needed to cope with the additional work involved for them in the Government's proposals for installing baths, inside water closets, and hot water in houses, and for controlling houses in multiple occupation.

Mr. Braine: The Public Health Inspectors' Education Board is responsible for keeping the level of recruitment under review, and my right hon. Friend is in touch with it on this subject, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that sort of Answer does not find the public health inspectors which every local authority needs? The Minister of Housing and Local Government has made great play about the attack on slum clearance, on multi-occupied houses and other factors in the housing programme, but local authorities cannot get public health inspectors to start to do this work in addition to all the work they do under the Ministry of Health. To give an instance, out of a complement of 33 we are 11 short in my constituency and cannot get inspectors even though we train them. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this subject needs a complete review of the salaries paid to these people if we are to attract them into this difficult and, on many occasions, not very pleasant occupation?

Mr. Braine: The question of remuneration is quite another matter. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put a Question on the Order Paper about that. As to a review, as I have said, the Board has been asked to look at this matter and to consider methods by which the number of inspectors in training might be increased and to make a new assessment of the possible future intake required. That is the only step which can be taken to meet the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Mr. Allaun: Surely the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the serious discontent over salaries in this profession?

What does he propose to do about it? Is he aware that, in spite of this fact, public health inspectors, with great public spirit, are considering proposals for accepting technical assistance to increase the amount of work they can do? Will he look at these two proposals?

Mr. Braine: I cannot discuss the question of remuneration. The other considerations raised by the hon. Member are for the Board. The Board has been asked to consider methods by which this shortage can be remedied, and I have no reason to believe that it will be dilatory in the task.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea how long we shall have to wait for this statement about increased recruitment? The City of Cardiff is under-staffed in this respect. Is he further aware that it is impossible for public health inspectors to bring to bear the pressure which they ought to bring on property owners who are not keeping their property in a fit and proper condition for the simple reason that we have not numbers enough to go round?

Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend has no precise information about the shortages, but I am aware that they exist in certain areas. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Not without notice."

Diabetic Packs

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the high cost of diabetic packs compared with the value of the goods in them; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Braine: The price to the National Health Service of one of the two packs in common use has recently been reduced and my right hon. Friend has no reason to question it. Discussions about the price of the second pack are in progress with the manufacturer.

Mrs. Slater: I am not only concerned with the price to the National Health Service, which is an important factor, but with the fact that some of the people who buy these packs themselves are asked to pay 10s. for a pack, which is a small Perspex case, when the commodity in it costs about 4s. 9d. Thus, they are paying 5s. 3d. for the small pack. If this is happening in the


National Health Service, is it not time that steps were taken to see that the National Health Service and the private person who buys these packs are not asked to pay such high prices merely for the pack which contains the commodity? These firms have been looked at before now.

Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady could not have heard my Answer. I said that the price of one of the two packs in common use has recently been reduced. I have no information which supports the suggestion that the pack costs as much as she says. If she will give me information I will certainly look into it. All I would say is that discussions about manufacturing costs and prices in respect of the second pack are under way now.

Mrs. Slater: To how much has the price of that pack been reduced?

Mr. Braine: Since 1st October, it has been reduced to 8s. 2d.

Mrs. Slater: That is still 2s. too much.

Cervical Cancer (Cytologists)

Mr. Taverne: asked the Minister of Health how many trained cytologists are at present working in England and Wales on examination of cervical smears; and what plans he has for increasing their number.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): There are no separate figures; the work is done at hospital laboratories throughout the country; I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2nd December to the hon. Member for Middles rough, West (Mr. Bray), about expansion both of the services and of training arrangements.

Mr. Taverne: Will the Minister consider an article which recently appeared in which the figure of 30 to 40 was given? Will he explain how this was calculated at the time? On the second part of his Answer, is the Minister's aim that eventually screening should be offered to all women in the age group at risk? His answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Bray) seemed to be slightly different from the answer given by his predecessor. If that is his aim, when does he hope that it will be accomplished?

Mr. Barber: I certainly accept the principle of routine screening for all women at risk, but of course we cannot achieve this all at once. What we must do is expand the services as quickly as the expansion of trained staff and the resources of the boards will permit. Additional funds are being provided on the approval of schemes for the setting up and running of the special training centres, and once they are set up I hope that the number of experienced staff required will be provided by these and other means within about two years.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Minister's supplementary answer is very welcome. Does he say that it is only a shortage of trained cytologists which stands in the way of developing this into a routine system? If that is the case, what consideration has his Department given to the experimental trial of the machine testing of smears, which I understand has been carried out with some fairly promising results in the London Hospitals?

Mr. Barber: I should like to look into the latter question. Answering the first part of the question, it is for each hospital board to decide the degree of priority it can give to cytological facilities, and we have made it clear to them that the Ministry of Health thinks that they should treat these services not only as important but as deserving of special consideration. I think that the hon. Member is right in his supposition that the main trouble at present is the lack of trained cytologists and technicians.

Doctors' Prescriptions (Complan)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Minister of Health if he will bring forward legislation to make provision under the National Health Service for a general practitioner to prescribe Complan for patients without being subject to surcharge.

Mr. Braine: No, Sir.

Mr. Pentland: I appreciate the difficulties involved, but the hon. Member is aware that some months ago I took up a case with his Department concerning a doctor in my constituency who had been surcharged a considerable sum of money because he prescribed something to a 17-year-old girl patient in order to


save her life? In view of the harsh treatment meted out to this doctor and the distressing circumstances, of which the hon. Member is fully aware, will he have further investigations made into the matter with the object of returning the doctor's money?

Mr. Braine: I am always willing to look into any special case, but it is important to put on record what the position is. Under the Acts, a doctor may prescribe any drug or medicine which he considers necessary for a patient's treatment. He is not entitled to prescribe any preparation which is not in the circumstances of the case a drug, and Complan is specifically classified as a food and not a drug by the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations. Any case of doubt is referred to independent referees. It would be wrong for that very fair arrangement to be interfered with.

Incontinence Pads

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Health if he has reconsidered the proposal to make incontinence pads freely available on form EC 10 by their inclusion in the official list for England and Wales, as in Scotland.

Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend's predecessor decided that they should be supplied through the local authorities and a circular has been sent to them commending their provision.

Dr. Mabon: Why are there anomalies as between the practice in Scotlandand the practice in England and Wales? Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary be kind enough to have a look at the special list again and see what the differences are between England and Wales and Scotland in this respect? Would he tell us, probably on some other occasion, that in fact in Scotland we seem to have the best end of the stick in this regard?

Mr. Braine: It is not for me to inquire into why there should be anomalies in Scotland.

Dr. Mabon: No, in England and Wales.

Mr. Braine: The position is, as we see it, that incontinence pads are an

item of nursing equipment required for care or after-care rather than an item for medical treatment. A circular was issued last July. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We will review the position as soon as there has been time to judge its effect.

Mr. Pavitt: Is not this a nonsensical position, in view of the shortage of geriatric beds in hospitals? Incontinence pads have been supplied in England in geriatric units in order to keep patients out of hospital. Provision such as they have in Scotland would save the National Health Service money. Will not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary re-examine this position?

Mr. Braine: I think not. I see no reason why the present arrangement should not work. As I have just told the House, we will see how it works and review the matter, if necessary.

Dental Health Education

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health if he will seek power to assume complete responsibility for dental health education throughout England and Wales.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: If dental health education is a valuable means of ensuring that the public generally, and young people particularly, clean their teeth regularly and go to the dentist at fixed intervals, surely this ought to be a national responsibility? Are not we running into danger that, by placing the onus on local health authorities, there will be tremendous variations over different regions and that dental health will suffer in consequence?

Mr. Barber: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of education in this respect, but I do not think that it would be right to exclude local health authorities and other bodies from this field. As some hon. Members will know, there has been a review of dental health education by the Joint Committee on Health Education, and I hope that it will not be too long before I receive its Report. Then I will consider all these matters.

Mr. Rankin: Would it not be better to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)


rather than poisoning our drinking water with sodium fluoride at £100 a ton?

Doctors (Postgraduate Education)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to provide funds for the postgraduate medical education of doctors employed in the health service.

Mr. Barber: I am considering how this should be further developed.

Mr. Boyden: What are the difficulties? Is there some inter-departmental dispute about who is responsible? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get on with the job and accept his responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Barber: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the training of doctors is part of the day-to-day work in hospitals, but I quite agree that there is need to expand postgraduate medical education in a methodical way, particularly in the non-teaching hospitals. The Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the University Grants Committee, which is very involved in all this, considered with the medical profession and other major interested bodies, at a conference on 22nd November—not so long ago—the lines on which regional boards should be encouraged to expand existing facilities and to plan future developments using Exchequer funds. The next stage will be to discuss this with the boards.

Doctors (Pay)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to alter the present distribution of remuneration between those general practitioners providing a high standard of service and those who do less.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will initiate discussions with representatives of the medical profession, with a view to amending the basis for reimbursing general practice expenses.

Mr. Barber: Discussions with representatives of the profession on the method of reimbursing family doctors' practice expenses will begin tomorrow.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the Minister tell us what form these discussions are taking? When he says that they are being undertaken with the profession, does that mean

with the General Medical Services Committee or with an ad hoc working party which he is establishing? Does this all mean that the Review Body is now no longer the proper channel for the adjustment of doctors' expenses and remuneration, or are these talks in addition to or will they supersede the work of the Review Body? Does it also mean that the Review Body is now responsible to the Minister instead of to the Prime Minister, as hitherto?

Mr. Barber: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is "No, Sir." It is certainly not taking the place of the Review Body and, in reply to the first part, these discussions are taking place between officials of the Ministry of Health and representatives selected by the British Medical Association.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how gratified I was to learn, from what I think was his first speech as Minister, that he expressed a view which had been urged from this Dispatch Box upon his predecessor with a singular lack of success for the last two years, and may I congratulate him on the change of policy? May I at the same time ask him whether these talks will be limited to the question of practice expenses and reimbursement, or whether they will embrace the whole question of the pool system of remuneration?

Mr. Barber: The talks are limited to the question of the reimbursement of practice expanses, but that is one part of the pool arrangements. The discussions, which will start tomorrow, will be limited in that way. As to the hon. Member's suggestion that there had been some change of policy, that is a little unfair on my right hon. Friend my predecessor because these matters differ from month to month and one of our great difficulties is, as every member of the medical profession who looks at this subject objectively knows, that it is not easy to find out exactly what the doctors themselves would like. But I hope that we shall in due course find this out.

Bronchitis

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health why the death-rate from bronchitis in Salford is 168 per 100,000 people, which is the highest in


the country, compared with a national average of 71;and what steps he proposes to take to help the city.

Mr. Braine: The reasons for local variations are not fully known; but I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement I made in the Adjournment debate on 15th February about the probable causes of bronchitis, and the measures that are being taken to lessen them.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local doctors blame, in particular, the damp and overcrowded rooms in old houses lacking damp courses? Some of the rooms are so wet that even the wallpaper will not stick on the walls but just peels off. Will the Parliamentary Secretary point out these facts to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and urge him to grant extra financial assistance to rehouse those in old cities such as Salford?

Mr. Braine: The factors affecting the mortality from bronchitis are complex—and this could be one of them in Salford—but the two main causes are believed to be air pollution and cigarette smoking. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Swingler: The Minister keeps saying that it may be this or it may be that, but what research is going on through the National Health Service it self in those areas which are the worst sufferers, like parts of Lancashire and Staffordshire—though I do not know that cigarette smoking is exceptionally higher in those places than in mid-Scotland and other places—to enable local authorities to find out what action they should take to try to combat this terribly high death roll from bronchitis?

Mr. Braine: The Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council has been engaged on a study of the likely causes. As I say, there is no simple answer; this is a complex matter. Smoking plays some part; smoke pollution probably plays a very great part.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health to what extent research is being carried out through the National Health

Service on the causes and incidence of death from bronchitis by occupation and by area of the country.

Mr. Barber: A number of hospitals and doctors co-operate in such research, and much research on bronchitis is carried out in universities or under the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister tell us a little more about this? Is he aware of the opinion widely held in certain parts of the country that chronic bronchitis is an occupational hazard and that research should be done to establish whether it should be incorporated in the Insurance Scheme as an occupational hazard, just as the Ministry ought to advise local health authorities on certain measures which could be taken in the localities? Will the Minister publish something shortly bearing on this matter?

Mr. Barber: I expect that the hon. Gentleman knows that studies of occupational and area mortality are carried out by the Registrar-General, and the most recent reports by him were published between 1954 and 1958. He will know, also, that I am advised generally on the problems of bronchitis by my Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which is at present giving special attention to bronchitis. I am awaiting its recommendations.

Cancer Diagnosis (Tomograph)

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Health if he will make funds available to develop the tomograph, a machine which can be used for cancer detection on the soft tissues of the human body.

Mr. Braine: Ultrasonic methods of diagnosis, including tomography, are being developed at a number of centres within the National Health Service.

Mr. Harper: Is the Minister aware that a British scientist, Dr. John Gordon, has put ten years of research into the development of this machine and has also spent £9,000 of his own money in doing so? Is he further aware that America has expressed some interest in this machine; and that it has no detrimental effect on the tissues of the human body? In view of what I have said, will the hon. Gentleman look at the machine and send experts to see what


possibilities are latent in it, so that we can have the best possible treatment for people suffering from cancer and those In the early stages who do not know that they are suffering from it? This machine will diagnose cancer of the liver and breast in the very early stages.

Mr. Braine: It is true that ultrasonic methods of tomography are being used experimentally in some of our hospitals, and that tomography is already one of the routine radiological procedures in cancer detection, but the hon. Gentleman must not assume that ultrasonic methods will completely replace those widely in use now. I will, however, certainly take his suggestion into account.

Midwives and Domiciliary Services (North-East Metropolitan Region)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health, what is the shortage of trained maternity nurses or midwives for domiciliary service and of home helps for maternity cases in the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region; and what steps are being taken to overcome this shortage.

Mr. Barber: Two of the local health authorities in this area are seeking to recruit more midwives, but the domiciliary service has everywhere been equal to the demands on it. Present numbers of home helps permit all the authorities to meet the needs of maternity cases, which receive priority.

Mr. Sorensen: The Minister has not given the exact number. Can he say whether the number, or the percentage, is higher or lower than it is in other parts of the country? Will he not appreciate that there is a very serious shortage of maternity nurses in this area, as well as in other areas? As it is impossible to order a decrease in the birth rate, should there not be more facilities for these mothers to bear their children?

Mr. Barber: As a result of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have made considerable inquiries from four county councils and three county borough councils. Where the midwifery staff is below strength, as it is in Essex and Hertfordshire, the authorities are making every effort to recruit staff and are taking steps to improve the conditions of service; for

example, by providing houses, by providing cars, and by arranging to rotate all-night duties. But, in general, the answer is as I gave it him a moment ago.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister agree with the recent impressive statement that a largo number of babies are dying every year because of the lack of this kind of service?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt referring to the two reports published last week. I could not be other than concerned even if only one solitary family tragedy were to occur, and I certainly do not wish to minimise the importance of the reports or the seriousness of the situation. But I think that the hon. Member should bear in mind that the main survey to which he has referred took place in 1958—more than five years ago. There has been very considerable improvement since then. The number of hospital maternity beds, the number of midwives and the number of confinements in hospitals have all been increasing year by year. Perhaps I could add just one other point—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Report he would appreciate its importance. Since 1958, when that survey took place, mortality rates have been going down steadily. The perinatal rate has fallen from 35 in 1958 to 30·8 in 1962, and the still-birth rate from 21·5 to 18·1 in the same period.

Alcoholism

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health what further efforts are being made in the treatment of alcoholism as a chronic disease; how many institutions or special wards are specifically devoted to this purpose, in particular in the London area; approximately how many patients are thus receiving treatment; and what is the percentage of recoveries.

Mr. Barber: The facilities provided by hospital boards and other bodies are being expanded. Ten special units are specifically devoted to this purpose, of which three are in the London area. About 150 patients are receiving treatment at the present time. Comprehensive figures about recoveries are not available.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the Minister agree the t this is quite an inadequate


service for this type of disease, as disease it is recognised to be? Would he not agree that there are only two major institutions dealing with this disease at present? In those circumstances, will not he secure some special inquiry into the whole question of alcoholism—if possible, with the co-operation of Alcoholics Anonymous?

Mr. Barber: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is really justified in those strictures, because four of these units have been established this year and another nine are under consideration. Of course, many of these types of patients are admitted to hospitals without special units, but it is interesting to note that the number of hospital admissions for alcoholism and alcohol psychosis has increased from 775 in 1953 to about 2,760 in 1961. Of course, to some extent, this is due to the increased willingness of people to receive treatment.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would not the Minister agree that the units in operation, and planned, are still only sufficient to scratch the surface of the problem, which is very extensive? Would he not also agree that many hospital authorities would like to start these units if they were not limited, under the edict of his predecessor, to 2 per cent. development per annum; and that the greatest service he could do would be to be a little more generous with revenue expenditure in the coming year?

Mr. Barber: I do not know about that, but I am sure that it is right to continue the practice applied by my predecessor, and other Ministers of Health before me, of leaving it to the boards themselves to decide the priorities. Therefore, it must remain for each hospital authority to decide, bearing in mind the other great needs of the hospital service, what preference they should give to alcoholics.

Health and Welfare Services

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Health what increases are proposed during the period covered by the Health and Welfare Plan in the numbers of health visitors, home nurses and social workers employed by local authorities.

Mr. Barber: Local health and welfare authorities propose an increase between

1962 and 1972 of some 2,400 health visitors. 2,100 home nurses and 1,900 social workers, all whole-time equivalents.

Lord Balniel: I welcome the increase in these very valuable services, but does my right hon. Friend expect that they will be adequate to meet the increased responsibilities falling on the professions? Further, can he say whether the Council for Training in Social Work will be reviewing its training facilities in the light of the figures which he has given?

Mr. Barber: I am a little new to the job, but, from what I have seen so far, I should have thought it likely that more of these people would be required, and, of course, the arrangement made by my predecessor was that there would be revision from year to year. As regards training facilities, there are councils for the training of health visitors and for training in social work, and I have no doubt that both these bodies will bear in mind the increased demand which we expect.

Cytology

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of recent statements made by him in regard to vaginal cytology, he will now give an assurance that regional boards which are able to provide special courses in cytology will receive additional Exchequer funds to help in this work.

Mr. Barber: I have invited one regional board and four boards of governors to provide special training centres and have promised them additional funds for the purpose.

Mr. Montgomery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I have an assurance that the additional funds which he is to provide will not be used simply for the training and salaries of technicians but that there will be something extra in order to carry on this very necessary work?

Mr. Barber: The additional funds are, I fear, solely in respect of training. If I may give my hon. Friend one little bit of good news, he will be pleased to know that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is one of the boards invited to co-operate.

Miss Bacon: Will the Minister assure the House and the women in this country that he will do everything possible in this matter, since this is one of the cancers which can be cured if early treatment is given?

Mr. Barber: Yes; I think that the hon. Lady will find, when she looks at what I have said now and also in answer to an earlier Question, that I have given advice to regional hospital boards in line with what she asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

St. George's Hospital, Hornchurch

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health what increases there have been in the nursing staff at St. George's Hospital, Hornchurch, since 28th March, 1963;and whether a consultant geriatrician has now been appointed by the regional hospital board.

Mr. Braine: The nursing staff has increased by 17. It has not yet been possible to appoint a consultant geriatrician, and the post has been re-advertised.

Mr. Driberg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the latter part of that Answer is very disappointing, since this was the brightest gleam of hope in his reply to the Adjournment debate on 28th March last? Can he say how many consultants have considered this post and whether the existing nursing staff—on whom, of course, there is no reflection at all—are being specially trained in this difficult and often unpleasant geriatric work?

Mr. Braine: I do not agree that the Answer is a disappointing one. Despite the difficulties at this hospital, there has been an increase in the nursing staff, including 13 trained staff. The post of consultant geriatrician has been advertised on two occasions, but the applicants interviewed were not considered suitable. A third advertisement has now gone out and the appointments committee will interview applicants on 16th January. Three applications have been received so far.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there appear to be an

unusual number of complaints about this hospital, many of which have reached me" Is there nothing which the Department can do to assist the hospital on these important matters?

Mr. Braine: I am sure that, with his special knowledge of these matters, the hon. Member will know that continuing adverse publicity does not help recruitment. In this particular case, the hospital authorities are to be congratulated in managing to increase the number of nurses in an area where it has been difficult to effect recruitment up to now.

Wrekin Hospital

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Minister of Health in view of the designation of the new town of Dawley, what discussions he has had with the new town corporation and The Wrekin Hospital authorities concerning the need for a new maternity hospital unit at The Wrekin Hospital, taking into account that the maternity services in the area cannot stand the strain of the additional population due to arrive in the new town.

Mr. Barber: Discussions have already been held between Officers of the regional hospital board and the development corporation; further population estimates are now awaited from the corporation so as to assess the need for additional maternity and other hospital facilities.

Mr. Yates: I thank the Minister for that reply for the moment. Does he realise that his predecessor visited the area six months ago and that already the medical practitioners' committee in the area have said that the situation is getting such that they cannot manage? How muchlonger have we to wait before we can have a reply about the maternity unit? Will it be before Christmas, or afterwards?

Mr. Barber: I can probably help my hon. Friend to some extent. A new maternity unit with over 80 beds, with full and continuous consultant coverage, will be the first phase of the new district general hospital at Copthorne. Building work is expected to begin next year. As for the short term, I am informed that the immediate need of The Wrekin Hospital is not additional maternity beds. In fact, bed occupancy at


this unit has been on average only about two-thirds during the past two years.

Mr. Yates: In order to save time, I should like to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

London Teaching Hospitals (Out-patients)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Health what is the approximate average waiting time for out patients attending the London teaching hospitals; and if he will impress on the management boards concerned the continual need for inspection of the procedures they adopt for out-patient attendance.

Mr. Braine: I am afraid that it is not practicable to calculate such a figure. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Smith: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that recently I received a complaint from a woman who was kept waiting for two and a half hours in the out-patient department of a certain London hospital? On inquiry I found that this was in no way exceptional. Indeed, there are delays of two hours or more in most London hospitals. Would my hon. Friend impress on the management committees concerned that their otherwise admirable service is falling down very badly at out-patient level?

Mr. Braine: I appreciate very much the point my hon. Friend is making. I can assure him that we are just as anxious as he is to eliminate undue waiting time for out-patients, both for appointments and at the hospital. There would not be any advantage in trying to establish an average waiting time. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that it is particular sources of complaint and not average performance that need to be tackled. I am prepared vigorously to pursue any instance of undue waiting that is brought to my notice.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that, confirming what the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) has said, there are at least indications that the London teaching hospitals are amongst the worst offenders in this

respect? Has his Department considered recommending to hospital authorities the automatic monitoring system for out-patient departments which has been used experimentally in the Cardiff Royal Infirmary, with promising results which are described in the current issue of the Journal of Medical Care?

Mr. Braine: Yes. We are always alive to what it is necessary to do to keep the hospital authorities up to the mark. We cannot continuously lecture them on the subject. On the other hand, the kind of suggestion the hon. Gentleman has made is one that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind when next considering the issue of a hospital memorandum or some other guidance.

New Hospitals

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Health how many new hospitals were completed in 1960 and in 1961 in England and Wales.

Mr. Barber: In 1960, phases of three new and two substantially remodelled hospitals, and in 1961, phases of three new and one substantially remodelled hospital, were completed and brought into use.

Dr. Mabon: Does the Minister realise that that Answer, together with the Answer he gave me last week on a comparable matter, in fact show a shortfall in spending of £140 million in a period of four years? Does he realise that his predecessor promised us a rate of spending of £70 million a year and to that end imposed health taxes amounting to £70 million a year upon the chronic sick? Would he like to justify this?

Mr. Barber: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is wrong on both counts. I will give him the figures. The Hospital Plan assumed expenditure in the first five years of £200 million—that is to say, an average of £40 million a year. At current prices, this is the equivalent of £45 million a year. The amount we expect to spend in this financial year is £46 million. Next year we plan to spend £52 million. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that the progress of the building programme in


the Hospital Plan can be better gauged by comparing the volume of work in progress when the Plan was published, which was £70 million, with that at the present time which is, not the figure the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but £120 million.

Dr. Mabon: May I draw the Minister's attention to his predecessor's speech in February 1960 in which his predecessor said that these taxes would be spent entirely on hospital building programmes? May I remind the Minister that these taxes were raised in 1960 by £68 million and in 1961 and thereafter by a sum in excess of that? Is not this a gross deception of Parliament and the people?

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman is contemplating removing National Health Service contributions and charges to patients, the cost would be something in the region of £190 million. One could recoup that by increasing the standard rate of Income Tax by 6d. in the £.

New Hospital, King's Lynn

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Health what proposals he has had from the regional hospital board about changes in the plans for the new general hospital in King's Lynn; whether it will be possible to build on an enlargement of the present site; and when he hopes to authorise a start to be made.

Mr. Braine: None, Sir; some additional land will be required; in the years 1966–67 to 1970–71.

Mr. Bullard: Do I understand from my hon. Friend's reply that he has received no proposals for a change in the Plan and that therefore the building of the hospital will go on as was announced earlier? If so, this will rather dash the hopes of local people, who had hoped that there would be a very considerable extended plan for addition to the general hospital? There is a general wish in the town that this should be, if possible, in town and on the present site.

Mr. Braine: I do not think my hon. Friend is justified in being so pessimistic. The regional board's planning of this new hospital is in a preliminary stage, and for that reason no firm forecast for the starting date can be given.

If my hon. Friend would like to write to me or come to see me about this, I can perhaps give him more information.

Anaesthetists

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health to what extent delays in surgical operations are caused by the shortage of anaesthetists.

Mr. Braine: Shortage of consultant anaesthetists may caused some delay in non-urgent cases. Additional posts are being created.

Mr. Boyden: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in some areas anaesthetists spend up to fifteen hours in the theatre? Is he not aware that this can cause danger to the patients? Will he make an effort to increase the number of consultants and senior anaesthetists and do something at least to plan the use of anaesthetists so that patients are not subject to this kind of risk?

Mr. Braine: I am not aware of any delay in urgent cases caused by shortage of anaesthetists. The number of senior registrars in training as anaesthetists is being increased in order to increase the number of consultants, but the process obviously must be gradual. Senior registrar posts must give adequate training, and candidates for them must be of proper standard. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is that we are examining now with the Joint Consultants' Committee the reports of boards on their long-term reviews of medical staffing.

Mentally Sick

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient hospital accommodation for permanently mentally sick cases of young people under the age of 18; and what are his proposals for making good the shortage.

Mr. Barber: There is a shortage of special accommodation; the Standing Mental Health Advisory Committee, which was asked to examine this problem, has recently reported to me and I shall soon be issuing advice to regional hospital boards.

Sir B. Janner: Is it not an understatement merely to say that there is a


shortage? Is it not true to say that there is no room at all and that only if a parent can afford £17 a week for a child do the facilities exist? Will the Minister see that the matter is hurried up, firstly because of the serious nature of this matter and, secondly, because the lack of room has caused considerable trouble, particularly in court cases, where no facilities have been found for children of this description?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly do everything I can to hurry it up. Indeed, the advice which is to be given to regional hospital boards—within a couple of weeks or so, I hope—will suggest interim targets based on current knowledge we have of needs.

Mr. A. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the very progressive West Ham Borough Council will next year open the finest hospital for mentally handicapped children in the world and that the council will be calling it the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage other local authorities to follow the good example of West Ham Borough Council, which happens to be Labour-controlled?

Catering

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the concern aroused by the report of the three scientists commissioned by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, a copy of which has been sent to him, concerning the state of kitchens and food in many hospitals; what study he has made of the report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the facts revealed in the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust's report on food in hospitals, a copy of which has been sent to him; what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the recommendations in the report are implemented as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barber: I am still studying this report. The survey on which it was based was made in 1960, 1961 and 1962, and considerable improvements have since been and are being made. Most of the recommendations are already included in the advice given by the Ministry of Health on catering problems, including

meal content, preparation and service, and the avoidance of unnecessary waste. I welcome the report as a further stimulus to hospital authorities to secure universally high standards.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister saying that the conditions which were revealed by these highly responsible and qualified people do not exist today, or is he saying that part of them has been altered? Can he tell us who has got into trouble at the Ministry of Health for allowing such conditions to exist and how can the skill of our doctors and nurses be helped if such things as dirty kitchens and very poor food are allowed to persist?

Mr. Barber: I was saying in answer to the hon. Member that nearly two years ago, in January, 1962, advice was given to hospital authorities on how food should be prepared, cooked and served to the high standards. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that inefficient catering will get no sympathy from me. Where there is unnecessary waste or bad catering the greater the public outcry the better. After all, we are dealing with the taxpayers' money and this is a public service. However, it is grossly unfair and naïve to pretend that there is something universally wrong with hospital catering. Many hospitals are absolutely first-class, but some of the staff are having to cope with out of date facilities. We must persevere until we ensure that the general standard is brought up to the standard of the best.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the Minister not agree that this survey was made in 156 hospitals, which represented a scientific sample, and that although no doubt some hospitals are very good, the great majority of the larger hospitals came in for some very swingeing criticism from this distinguished body of experts? Would he not also agree that waste amounting to 40–45 per cent. of the total food prepared in hospitals is a shocking and scandalous thing which requires urgent action on his part and on that of the hospital authorities?

Mr. Barber: I think that the estimate given of the average waste of food in hospitals, not by the report but by some newspaper commentators, was somewhat exaggerated. However, I entirely agree that there is much to be done here and that if we are successful in reducing the amount of waste we shall save a


considerable amount of money. I hope that hon. Members and those outside this House will—as I am sure the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has done—read the whole of the Report, because if they do they will see that it contains a great deal of praise for some hospitals.

Mentally Handicapped Children

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the continuing lack of facilities for mentally-handicapped children and of the problems that exist in areas where no hospital accommodation can be found for the mentally sick under the age of 18 years; and what decisions he has reached following consideration of the Scott and Underwood Reports.

Mr. Barber: Facilities provided by hospital and local health authorities are increasing; advice on child guidance, based on the Underwood Report, was issued to these authorities in 1959; decisions on the Scott Report were announced to the House by my predecessor on 30th May in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley).

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the facilities available for mentally handicapped children have been woefully inadequate for all too long, and is this not a terrible thing for parents of such children? Should not we, the rest of the community, try to do our utmost to help, bearing in mind the blow that falls on any family with such a child?

Mr. Barber: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. Long before I came to the Ministry of Health I was the president of my local branch of the Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, and I have, therefore, taken a considerable interest in this matter. As to the future, it is perfectly true that we need more local authority hostels and training centres for mentally abnormal children. We have plans for considerable expansion, as the hon. Member knows.

Mr. Harry Woolf

Mr. Taverne: asked the Minister of Health why the secretary of the Atkinson Morley Hospital, Wimbledon, has

refused to make available to Mrs. Harry Woolf or those acting on her behalf the medical record showing the late Mr. Harry Woolf's condition on admission to the hospital on 12th November, 1962.

Mr. Barber: A full medical report has already been given. In the circumstances of this particular case, I am advising the hospital to make the medical record available.

Hospital Workers

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that he will not reduce or stop any salary or wage increases for hospital workers freely negotiated by the appropriate Whitley Councils.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir, but there would have to be very compelling reasons for me to withhold approval to a Whitley agreement.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the Minister say "No, Sir"? Is he not aware of the great disgust caused throughout the country, and not only in the Health Service, when one of his predecessors did this very thing? Can he not give an assurance that he will not interfere with voluntary trade union negotiations when those negotiations go through the proper channels? What right has he to interfere when the people within the industry freely negotiate an agreement? Will he net say that he will not interfere with them?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman asks what right I have to interfere. My right derives from Regulations that came into force in 1951. The pay of National Health Service staff cannot be negotiated without reference to the national interest in the widest sense, but I very much hope that circumstances will be such that it will not fall to me to withhold approval.

North Staffordshire

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a further statement on hospital plans for North Staffordshire, with particular reference to the priority to be given to the proposed new pathological department.

Mr. Braine: Three main schemes, costing well over £1 million, to improve the hospitals at Stoke are now under construction; the next main scheme, a new maternity unit, is expected to start


next summer; the pathological department is to be extended next year pending the building of a new department.

Mr. Swingler: I am grateful for small mercies, but is not the Minister aware—I think that he must be from the evidence which I sent him some time ago—that the urgent need is for an entirely new pathological department in North Staffordshire to replace the early Victorian slum in which our pathologists and their staff at present have to work? They will be grateful for some alleviation next year, but when will it be possible to include in the programme, for it is really very urgent, an entirely new pathological department for this area of more than 500,000 people?

Mr. Braine: Discussion on the scope and timing of the new department is under way locally. I cannot possibly accept the stricture implied in the hon. Gentleman's first comment. The three main schemes under construction and building now are: an accident unit, with operating theatre suites, costing £400,000, to be completed in the spring of next year; a central out-patient department to serve the hospitals of Stoke costing £750,000, to be completed at the end of 1965; and neurosurgical and neurological wards at North Staffs Royal Infirmary costing £150,000, to be completed at the end of 1965. The other main scheme is a new maternity unit which will cost over £2 million. I should not describe these as small mercies.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Minister realise that I am speaking with regard to the relative need? I should be prepared to receive him on the ground in order to look at the actual situation in North Staffordshire, with its legacy of thirty years of negligence, and to examine the needs of this enormous area. Perhaps he would then consider whether this really is a programme adequate to the need.

Mr. Braine: I am always ready to meet any hon. Member. I should be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the particular point which is worrying him about the pathological department.

Rookwood Hospital, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that patients at Rookwood Hospital, Llandaff, Cardiff, have to be carried more

than 70 yards in the open from the operating theatre to the wards because no money is available to build the covered way approved by the Rookwood Hospital House Committee eighteen months ago; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir, for a few patients from one particular ward. The Welsh Hospital Board and the Cardiff Hospital Management Committee are considering giving higher priority to the building work.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister trying to shuffle off responsibility? Is he not aware that the hospital committee has stated that it is the rigid financial restriction imposed by his Department which is responsible for the present difficulty? Does he think, because only a few patients have to be carried from the operating theatre out into the open air a distance of between 70 and 100 yards, that this is not an urgent matter?

Mr. Braine: I am not defending it for a moment. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman, in uncharacteristic fashion for him, has put a most unfair construction on my reply. I said that the matter was being considered now, and it may well be that, following a report from the hospital staff, the scheme will be accorded a higher priority by the hospital management committee.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister prepared to help the hospital management committee financially to get on with the job? As he will know from the representations which have been made to his Department, it has been waiting for a considerable time.

Mr. Braine: I think that it would be best to await the outcome of the discussions which are at present under way.

Hospital Confinement Facilities, Nottingham

Mr. Whitlock: asked the Minister of Health what he is doing to increase hospital confinement facilities in Nottingham; and what steps he is taking to overcome the shortage of midwives.

Mr. Barber: A new maternity unit of 168 beds is to be built for the Nottingham City Hospital; and the hospital management committees are advertising for additional midwives.

Male Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health what is the current maximum salary of a State enrolled male nurse.

Mr. Braine: £650. excluding London weighting.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister realise that this represents for these people a decline of earnings in real terms of 5 percent. since 1949, in a period during which average earnings in manufacturing industry have increased by no less than 34 per cent.? Is he aware that most of these State enrolled nurses are getting less than the orderlies in the same wards in which they are serving and that very many valuable men are leaving the profession because of these niggardly salaries? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Braine: It is true that there was a net reduction of 70 male enrolled nurses last year, but the number of female State enrolled nurses—

Mr. Lubbock: I am talking about male enrolled nurses.

Mr. Braine: I know, but the hon. Gentleman asks for a reply to his question and he should permit me to answer. The number of female enrolled nurses has increased by a net 761. I can make no comment on the question of remuneration. The hon. Gentleman has not asked me about that in his main Question. If he will put a Question down, I will endeavour to answer it. All I will say is that the salary scale for the State enrolled nurse was fixed by the Industrial Court in an award it made last April which was put into effect on 1st July.

Medical Staffing (Report)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if the review of medical staffing consequent upon the Platt Committee Report has now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barber: The review has not yet been completed.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the urgent need to reduce the long waiting time in a number of hospital specialties, will the Minister seek to get this review com-

pleted by the boards at an early stage? Is he aware that the hold-up for beds is very often caused by a shortage of consultants in the particular specialty? Unless the review is completed, how can more consultants be appointed in order to get cases dealt with quickly? For example, gynaecological cases sometimes have to wait as long as four or five years before they can be operated on.

Mr. Barber: At the moment, we are still awaiting reports from three boards of governors. I recognise that it is an urgent matter, but I am surprised at the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I hope he will let me have particulars of his complaint, because my information is that new consultant posts in appropriate cases are not being held up.

FISHERIES (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the West European Fisheries Conference.

Sir DOUGLAS MARSHALL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement upon the result of the European Fisheries Conference.

Mr. Jeger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on future policy on fishing limits.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): With your leave, Mr Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 68, 69 and 70.
A conference of Western European countries met in London from 3rd to 6th December to consider certain fishing problems. Her Majesty's Government invited to the conference representatives of the Commission of the European Economic Community and of the following Governments: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. All attended the conference.
The agenda comprised the following items:
(1) Freedom of fishing and access to fishing grounds;
(2) Access to markets;
(3) Fisheries policing;
(4) Miscellaneous.
There was a useful discussion on all these matters, and a number of proposals were made. In particular, proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom and by other delegations relating to fishery limits. In order to allow time for further study of these proposals, and of the other matters discussed in the conference, it was agreed that the conference should resume on 8th January next with the same agenda.
I do not think that, while these matters are still under negotiation, the House will wish me to add to the statement of policy made on 29th April last by my right hon. Friend the then Lord Privy Seal. A full report will be issued after the conclusion of the conference.

Sir Douglas Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of fishery limits, particularly to the inshore fishing industry? May I ask him whether he will be able to make a statement on these limits and when he thinks that the conference is likely to end?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of considering limits in a general consideration of fishery problems. We will make a statement as soon as the conference is over. It is difficult to say how long it will last, but I should anticipate that it would be finished within a fortnight of its resumption.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Member realise that his statement is very unsatisfactory regarding, in particular, fishing limits? He did not give any indication of what discussions took place, how far those discussions went and the possibilities of an agreement between the various countries. Does he realise that that is of the utmost importance to the British fishing industry, and particularly to Aberdeen?

Mr. Thomas: I am fully aware of the importance to the fishing industry, par-

ticularly to those who fish near the coastal waters, of limits. This matter was discussed at length during the course of the conference. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member that there has been an unsatisfactory conclusion. There has been no conclusion. It is, in fact, satisfactory that the Governments concerned are considering the proposals put forward.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is a little difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman made this statement verbally instead of in a Written Answer, because he has told us nothing. He says that he will make a written statement at the end of the conference. I can only assume that he was hoping for a supplementary question which he could answer as to what were the proposals about limits which we put forward, because he said that proposals were made. The only purpose of making a verbal statement would be to tell us that, so I ask him that.

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, but I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's question because it was agreed at the conference that its proceedings should be treated as confidential until the conference is over. As I say, I hope to make a full statement when the conference is over. We thought that it would be convenient, particularly to those hon. Members interested in the subject, if I were to give the state of play at the moment.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter has dragged on for some time? Will he confirm that, in the last resort, if no agreement is reached after the January meeting, a decision about limits will be reached in Britain's own interests and that it will not necessarily be dependent on other people's opinions?

Mr. Thomas: We certainly hope that agreement can be reached, but if it cannot Her Majesty's Government will have to consider the situation in the light of the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the then Lord Privy Seal on 29th April last.

Mr. P. Browne: While welcoming Her Majesty's Government's initiative in calling this conference, may I put it the other way round? Will my hon.


Friend say whether he made it clear to the other members of the conference that we must take unilateral measures of our own on fishery limits? If he has not done so, will he please do so in January?

Mr. Thomas: We have made it quite clear to the conference that the present situation cannot remain as it is.

BILL PRESENTED

RATING (INTERIM RELIEF)

Bill to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities by reference to the proportion of elderly persons in the population of their areas and for the mitigation of hardship to residential occupiers attributable to the increase in the level of rates; and for connected purposes, presented by Sir Keith Joseph; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; Mr. Alan Green, and Mr. Corfield; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

BRITISH ARMY

3.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I beg to move,
That the Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House or12th November, be approved.
I hope that, in moving this Order, it will be convenient if I refer briefly to discipline and then give a full statement of the present recruiting position.
As the House is aware, one of the main purposes of the Army Act is to provide the legal power to impose discipline. The Act defines offences, prescribes punishments and places authority in the hands of particular officers. At the same time, it includes various safeguards to protect individuals from the improper use of power. In particular, it provides for the individual aright to seek redress of grievance, and imposes upon his superiors a statutory obligation to accept and deal with such complaints.
In the ordinary everyday life of the Army, the Army Act is very much in the background. Relations between officers and men are based on mutual trust and confidence rather than on legal sanctions. But, of course, offences are committed beyond those that can be dealt with by verbal correction or rebuke, and then the machinery of the Act must be brought into action.
During last year, two changes have been made in the administration of discipline under the Act. Less serious offences are dealt with in the company office, and we have recently enlarged the powers of company commanders. Hitherto, they have not had power to award monetary penalties and minor offences attracting such penalties had to be dealt with by commanding officers. Subordinate commanders not below the rank of captain may now award forfeitures of up to seven days' pay and stoppages up to £5 to corporals and privates, subject to the right of the accused to elect trial by court-martial. This new arrangement is working satisfactorily.
The second change concerns the record of punishments and is consequent upon the first. Within units punishments awarded by company commanders are recorded on a conduct sheet which may


be periodically destroyed after a period of good behaviour or on promotion to certain ranks. On the other hand, punishments awarded by commanding officers have hitherto been recorded permanently on the man's regimental conduct sheet, with certain exceptions.
We have clarified the position and provided that, when a commanding officer awards a punishment no greater than that which the company commander can now award, it will be entered only on the company conduct sheet. A soldier's future need not, therefore, be prejudiced by a permanent record of comparatively trivial offences, provided he qualifies by subsequent good conduct for the destruction of his company conduct sheet.
The last 12 months have not witnessed any striking changes in the statistics concerning courts-martial. Nineteen officers were convicted, which is nine less than the number in the previous year and represents about one officer in a thousand. In the same period, there were 2,521 courts-martial convictions of other ranks. This is a slight increase in the number for the previous year, but expressed as a percentage of strength the rise has been only from 1·46 to 1·48 per cent.
There has been a marked increase in appeal petitions to the Army Council—59 as against 37 in the previous year. But the number of cases taken to the Appeal Court increased by only two—from 29 to 31. The most significant rise is in the number of appeals which were upheld by the Appeal Court—six in the last year as against a total of eight for the whole of the previous ten years. I am carefully watching the position to see whether there are any special inferences to be drawn from this trend. Meanwhile, of course, the findings of the Appeal Court in each case are most carefully studied.
In this period, the Army has passed through a transitional phase, and the all-Regular force has at last been achieved. There has, obviously, had to be a good deal of adjustment in this period, but the state of morale and discipline is good. Several hon. Members, like myself, have recently visited the British Army of the Rhine and elsewhere, and I am sure that they will

have been impressed, as I was, by the morale and bearing of the troops.
I would like to give the House some account of the recruiting situation. As hon. Members will know, another purpose of the Army Act is to set out the terms of enlistment which provide the legal basis for other rank recruiting. In July this year my predecessor indicated to the House the position as it stood at that time. By the end of October, the strength of the Army had reached 171,092, and of this figure 151,895 were other ranks. This means that we were still over 8,000 short of our target of 160,000 other ranks within a total of 180,000 officers and men.
It is worth while going back a bit in time so as to see how far we have come. In February, 1961, in the Estimates debate of that year, the then Secretary of State recalled that we had set ourselves the minimum target of a 165,000 Army, containing 146,000 other ranks, and we were aiming to achieve that by the end of 1962. At the beginning of 1961, the strength was 130,000. During 1961, the numbers built up to 137,000, but the prospects of our reaching our target of 146,000 by the end of 1962 still seemed doubtful.
The House will remember the remark able recruiting year that followed. We enlisted, during 1962, no fewer than 28,500 recruits from civil life. At one period, we were recruiting men from civil life at the rate of a battalion a week. The minimum target of 146,000 other ranks was reached during the month of August, 1962, five months ahead of schedule, and by the end of the year the strength had risen to 150,430. By any standard this was a good effort. I should like to mention, with the Army's gratitude, the late Sir Frederic Hooper, adviser on recruiting to the Minister of Defence: I worked beside him and knew the full value of his help.
The period of this large and rapid intake had given rise to certain criticisms. It was said that we were not being selective enough about whom we took. I dare say that with the heat turned on recruiting as it was, and rightly, and with the growing and gathering momentum of the recruiting machine, some men got in whom we could have done without. But this is not to say that we lowered our standards. We did not. What we did


decide to do, in the autumn of 1962, encouraged by the rate of the Army's build-up, was to tighten up these standards in certain respects.
With effect from January, 1963, we revised the rules concerning character and medical fitness and placed certain restrictions on the entry of married men. I think that this was right and was, and still is, in the interests of the Army.

Mr. George Wigg: rose—

Mr. Ramsden: I will give way when I complete this part of the argument. What was said about married recruits might have caused misunderstanding at the time and, possibly, affected the rate of applications. This has now been cleared up, however, and I am satisfied that the rules as to the acceptance of married men are being operated by recruiting officers in a sufficiently flexible way.

Mr. Wigg: To deal not with words, but with facts, will the Secretary of State be good enough, before the debate ends, to let us know the rate of rejection as at 1st January this year and last year, so that we may make a comparison, and, by way of a guide, the rejection rate before the war, so that we may know roughly whether we are comparing like with like?

Mr. Ramsden: I take it that the hon. Member means the rate of acceptances as compared with the total of applicants.

Mr. Wigg: Yes.

Mr. Ramsden: I do not see why we should not produce that information for the hon. Member. I will certainly try to produce those figures for him.
The year 1963 started badly and as it went on the trend of recruiting grew more and more disappointing, for the first three months intake brought us only 70 per cent. of the 1962 level. The end of the bad weather came, but there was no improvement. In April, 1963, we had the lowest monthly intake for over two years. It is never easy to analyse or isolate the particular factors which make for a good or a bad spell of recruiting. Nevertheless, looking back over the past, it is possible to adduce several reasons which may explain why recruiting began to go as badly as it did.
It was, as I have said, a good effort to reach our first target several months ahead of schedule, but I must admit that I had always looked forward to our doing so and to the attendant publicity, which could not be escaped, with some mixed feelings. There was a real chance that it would produce a reaction and a slackening off of effort and of the sense of urgency in recruiting all the way down the line. I believe that this is one of the things which may have happened.
The Army had been making exceptional efforts to recruit during 1961 and 1962. It is bound to be difficult to keep such an effort of this kind keyed up to high pitch over a long period. The time was bound to come when the machine changed, so to speak, into a lower gear, but the trouble was that we got into one gear too low. We were not helped at this time, either, by a series of incidents which got the Army a bad Press.
In the face of all this, we have not hesitated to take the necessary measures to improve the situation. We laid on another intensive drive, both on television and in the Press, and by September the figures showed some improvement. The net result of the period of very low recruiting had been that between the end of March and the end of August there was a fall in the strength of the Army of nearly 700 men. September saw some improvement: this is normally a good recruiting month, but the figures were significantly better than the pattern of recruiting over the previous eight months had led us to expect they would be. There was a gain in Army strength of nearly 800 during the month. In October, in spite of the fact that a larger than normal number of men reached the end of their engagement, there was a rise of some 200.
Taking stock of where we are now, and looking, first, on the credit side, we are today within 5 per cent. of our target strength for other ranks and we have a better balanced Army than we had a year ago. The serious shortage of specialists, in particular, in the Royal Signals, has been reduced. Experience has shown that it is possible to channel recruits into the corps which are short: not all applicants insist on joining a particular arm. In consequence, we


have been able, in spite of the general situation, to achieve a steady build-up where we needed it most On the other hand, we still have shortages: these are particularly disturbing in the infantry, where we are 9 per cent. short of our requirements. Moreover, we are today facing heavier commitments than we had to face a year ago.
I remember very well the first debate which I had to answer at this Box, over three years ago. The point had been made that there might well be a situation before we reached our full Regular strength when we would have to manage to meet our commitments in spite of certain shortages such as I have mentioned. Hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly expressed their concern lest in such a situation we might have to ask of the Army more than it was fair to ask.
Bearing in mind that shortages, besides leaving some units under strength, lead to difficulties in the way of sudden and unexpected moves and postings and other inconveniences of that sort, and in spite of some extra commitments which could not have been foreseen, I am glad to say that the Army is taking the present situation in its stride. I think that a tribute is due to all ranks and to the staff for their ready response and the flexibility they have shown in meeting and responding to the challenge of commitments, foreseen and unforeseen.
Morale in the Army is high, and we must keep it so, because contented soldiers are our best recruiting agents. We shall continue with our present publicity: this is essential if we are to be sure that the possibility of the Army as a career is presented as widely as possible to anybody who, because of his age, is a potential recruit. We are trying to put this over more and more in terms of a real slice of Army life. Hon. Members may have seen the recent television films in which serving soldiers were briefly interviewed and asked their opinions of the Army.
This is an attempt to put the Army in the mind's eye of the potential recruit. But that is only the first stage. What brings him in is personal contact with contented Regular soldiers. We are,

therefore, superimposing on the basic groundwork of the recruiting organisation a number of what we have called Army youth teams—officers and men whose task it is to make contact with the youth of the nation and tell them and show them what Army life is like. All these should continue to produce results, and over the next two years we shall be helped by having a higher number of men born in 1946 and 1947 coming within the field of recruitment.
On the debit side, as in all large organisations, there is the problem of replacement: people leave before their due term for medical or compassionate reasons; they find they are not up to the job or they misbehave and have to be dismissed. This wastage, as it is termed, costs the Army about 14,000 men a year. In addition, we have to cope with run-out, that is to say, men coming to the end of their engagements. The run-out figure in 1964 will be considerably higher than in the present year because many men who enlisted for six years in 1958 will be coming to the end of their term of service.
One great asset which we possess is that next year we shall have a greater number of boys maturing to man's service: this has not been achieved without planning. The build-up of boy strength has proceeded swiftly from 7,000 at the beginning of 1959 to about 12,000 today. The output to man's service is already nearly doubled, from 2,200 to over 4,000 this year. Next year we shall be getting an output to man's service of nearly 5,000 boys. This will be a most valuable contribution to the recruiting problem.
The Army is very proud of these boys' units. If my hon. Friend can manage to satisfy the House about our figures today I am hoping to catch a train and visit one in the north of England tomorrow. I hope that we shall be able to provide opportunities to visit units of this character to any hon. Members who care to avail themselves of them.
These units serve to provide the Army with high quality junior leaders, skilled apprentices and much-needed tradesmen, as well as many bandsmen and infantry soldiers. Their training is expensive, and they tie up a good deal of military manpower, so that there is a limit to what we can do in this respect. But there is


no doubt that the boys represent a splendid investment, both for the Army and for the nation.
That is the picture, which I have tried to describe as fully as I can. It is obviously difficult for me, or anyone else at this stage, to make an exact prediction as to when we shall achieve a full-strength Army. We shall spare no efforts to get this as soon as we possibly can; and I hope that I have in no way given the impression that we are tackling an impossible task. The difference between maintaining the strength of the Army and achieving a build-up, when one gets down to it, is a fairly marginal one. In fact, if each of our recruiting and information offices could recruit just one more soldier each week than at present, that is to say, bring us up to about the 1961 rate of recruiting—and 1961 was a good but not in any way an exceptional year—then we should soon be home and dry.
I ask the House to approve the Order.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As the Secretary of State has pointed out, this is the first complete year in which we have had all-Regular forces. Opinion as to the desirability of abolishing conscription and going over to an all-Regular basis cut straight across the House. There were those on this side, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been a spokesman, who strongly opposed this, and there have been a variety of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who took the same view.
As one who, throughout, was in favour of going over to a professional basis, I feel that the Government are to be congratulated on the present result, although it is by no means perfect. Very few things which we ever attempt in fields of government, let alone defence, are. It is not, perhaps, as good as it might have been if the difficulties had been recognised and tackled earlier. Nevertheless, to have got within 8,000 of our requirements at this stage is pretty good. This was always the point at which we recognised that there might be shortages.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the late Sir Frederic Hooper. We would all join him in

paying tribute to Sir Frederic, but we would also be a little churlish not to remember the very notable service of the former Secretary of State for War, who showed great energy in this field and should be remembered with gratitude and appreciation in this respect.
One point about which I am not quite clear is the question of the lowering of standards. The rejection rate—if that is to be the level of standards—is certainly a great deal lower than it was before the war. For that we can congratulate ourselves on the enormously superior health of the nation. Whatever anybody may say, one way or the other, about the Welfare State, it has certainly provided us with a much healthier, larger and physically fitter rising generation We would certainly be very surprised if the rejection rate were not a great deal lower than it was before the war.
What I should be interested to know is how the rejection rate compares with what it was before 1961—before the decision to go over to an all-Regular Army had been taken. Is there any marked change, and is there a change in the rejection rate at the point where recruiting figures began to go down—that is, at the beginning of this year? Did these reductions in recruiting figures coincide—if I may put it that way—with a higher rejection rate? If they did, we might be interested to know whether there was any cause and effect, and whether the falling off in recruiting figures represented a demand for a higher standard.
I feel that it is important—I hope that this will be dealt with by the new publicity campaign—that people should get a better understanding of the position of the married recruit. How much is he wanted and how much is he not wanted? The idea got about that the married recruit was not wanted, and I regard that as a considerable factor in the recruiting figures. September figures are better and brought us a net gain of 800, but these figures were still down on the September, 1962 figures. Is this still so for October? I do not know. We have not had any October figures or been told how they compare.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I am interested to know to which figures the


hon. and learned Gentleman is referring. The October recruiting figures were published about a week ago.

Mr. Paget: I wish to know the comparison with the figures for October of last year and the subsequent November situation, about how they are now running, and whether we are back to the average.
The good features in prospect are that we are nearly running into the population bulge, so we should see an improvement in recruiting figures. If we still get the same sort of proportion, more people will come forward next year. I am worried about the question of better balanced forces. Last year anxiety was felt about the number of cooks, medical orderlies and transport personnel. Are they no longer causing anxiety?
The problem presented by the infantry is more difficult, but I have always considered—I have pursued this theme over the years and long before conscription was abolished—that we should not confine recruiting to these islands. It is wholly unnecessary that an effective fighting force should be homogeneous throughout. I suppose that there have been few more effective fighting forces than the German Army, during the last war. It is true that we beat the German Army, but only after a good many years. And we should remember that Germany was fighting not only ourselves, but the Russians and Americans combined.
Germany managed to maintain that battle for a long time. But the German Army was under 50 per cent. German. It was manned up in all its units by a foreign element and the great majority of these foreigners could not even speak German. Rommel's élite panzer divisions had a very high percentage. At times the figure was up to 40 per cent. This is an aspect of modern war. Only about one man in 20 actually fights. The other 19 are serving him, helping him, putting him into a position to fight; and these men certainly need not be recruited from these islands.
What about recruiting for the catering arm from Malta? In the Navy we used to recruit stewards from Malta, and anyone who has served with them will have a kindly memory of them. Anyone who, like myself, had a "doubtful"

stomach in nasty weather will remember the extraordinary kindness of the Maltese stewards. We could also recruit from Malta into the Royal Army Medical Corps and few, I should have thought, would make better medical orderlies than the Maltese.
Malta is not the only field for recruitment where there is severe unemployment and where the opportunity to serve would be not only an advantage to us but a blessing to the potential recruits. There is Singapore. If we require recruits for transport there are few better natural mechanics than the Chinese or indeed "stouter" chaps. In Malaya a great deal of our M.T. is run by Chinese recruits. Is there any reason why they should not be recruited, either on the ordinary basis, or as a special section in the Army Service Corps, or in R.E.M.E., to deal with transport?
Detachments of Chinese might serve with the infantry, because nowadays the infantry have a great deal of transport. When one looks at an infantry formation it is not now just a question of counting the rifles. Even at battalion level there are a lot of support troops. I have not even mentioned the West Indies, which is yet another source for recruitment. With Malta, Hong Kong, Singapore and the West Indies, we may find large sources of recruitment as yet untapped.
I fear that the speech that I am making is a little repetitive, but these are suggestions which I have been hammering at for a long time. The Minister said that the best recruiting agent or means of contact is the satisfied and happy soldier. I would add to that contact, also, with satisfied and happy ex-soldiers, because in both officer ranks and other ranks of the Army service is very much a matter of family tradition. It is from the Army families that we get the very best recruits, and we shall not continue to get those recruits, and have not continued to get them, because we have treated the senior members of those families unfairly. By paying pensions in bad coinage—that is what we have done—we have been creating in the military families, that most important recruiting field, anti-recruiting officers. Many of those men have been saying, "Do not go into the


Army. Look how it treated me", and they have been right in saying so.
The time has certainly come, and so it ought, when pension is paid according to service regardless of when the service was given. That would be cheaper than paying the pensions stepped up to the purchasing power which they held when they were contracted. After all, the Government enter into the contract and the Government control the coinage. Is it unjust to say that when that coinage becomes bad and depreciated the Government have a moral responsibility to make good their undertakings and pay for the service which they have received? After all, pensions are payment for service received in good coinage at the value contracted to be paid at the time. It would be far more expensive if the Government stepped up the purchasing power of pensions than if they merely paid them according to service regardless of when the service was rendered.
This morning I received a letter from a regimental sergeant major, stating:
Because of the time that I left, having completed ray service as a regimental sergeant major, I am now getting less pension than privates who served with me and never rose above the rank of private"—
that is, simply because the privates came out at another time. While that sort of thing happens we shall not get enthusiasm within the military families.
I urge, not merely in the name of justice—and I think that this is a cause in justice—but in the name of practical value, that the principle of pensions for service on the same level regardless of when the service was given ought to be applied if we are to get recruits from the sources from which we need them.
The only other matter that I want to raise is the position with regard to reserves. I hope that we can hear a little about how the figures stand there. We have, of course, a Bill changing the matter which will be coming before us after this Measure, but I should like to know a little more about the existing situation. After all, we are experiencing confrontation in Borneo. That may be an increasing commitment, because "confrontation" means, in effect, raiding across the border, and since we live in a world in which small nations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have some difficulty always in keeping these debates within the very narrow confines which our rules impose on us. There might be difficulties about the subject of pensions, but I let the hon. and learned Member continue. We must remember that we can talk really only about what is in the Bill and that we must treat the matter rather like a Third Reading debate. I think that if we get to numbers of forces required and the numbers of forces confronting them we shall get out of the range of this debate.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I will not go very much further. Of course, the Bill provides the law with regard to reserves and reserve liabilities. The point that I was about to make—I certainly will not make it if you feel that it is out of order, Mr. Speaker—was that the method of dealing with these commitments, which look rather threatening at the moment, would certainly be by means of reserves and not by a reimposition of conscription, which would provide us with only untrained personnel. That was the only point that I was going to make. We have difficulty in Borneo, but we have, we hope, no difficulty in Kenya—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider again the statement that you have just made about our debating the size of the forces referred to in the Bill? The Minister devoted a good deal of his speech to the size of the Regular Army, the shortage of other ranks and related matters. It appeared to my hon. Friends and myself that the statement you have just made suggested that if we followed the Minister we should be out of order. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for interrupting him.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the Minister sought to talk about recruiting. I did not succeed in excluding the subject of recruiting last year—although I think that I might have done so—merely because of the terms of enlistment carried in the Act. However, to discuss what should be the appropriate size of the Army with regard to the paragraphs relating to recruiting is, I think, outside


the rules of order on one of these Orders. The reason is that the Army Act does not govern the matter in that way, and we have to treat the debate on this Order as a Third Reading of the Army Act.
I should not lake to commit myself as to the exact extent to which the Minister went. There are moments when one's attention is a little distracted, but I hope that my deputies, if I myself am not here, will not rule anybody out of order for going as far as the Minister went, because that would not be fair. But when hon. Member say that we should have X tens of thousands of men, that is not a matter governed by the Bill, and, therefore, strictly speaking it is out of order on this Order.

Mr. Paget: Perhaps I may put it this way, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with his capacity, granted by the Bill, to call up various classes—

Mr. Speaker: Now we are getting confused. There is on the Order Paper a Bill for Second Reading later on. It sounds to me as though the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to that. If I misunderstand him, I am sorry. Is he referring to the Army Act?

Mr. Paget: My reference, Mr. Speaker, is to certain paragraphs in the Army Act. The Army Act covers the existing position with regard to reserves.

Mr. Speaker: I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is perfectly in order in doing that.

Mr. Paget: All I am asking is whether at present the Minister is satisfied with the situation as matters stand now. A future Bill will not, of course, be immediately affected; it is intended, as I understand it, to deal with a future situation, one that does not arise yet. I am concerned whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the reserves position is adequate to allow us to move quickly enough people to provide some sort of presence should three emergencies arise together—as they might well do—in Borneo, Kenya and Israel. I remind the House that we are still, of course, committed in Israel and that there is a very immediate threat with regard to the Jordan border. We should certainly like

to be reassured that the existing reserve machinery under this Act is adequate to deal with the immediate situations with which we might be faced.
We are working very much on the balance of numbers and mobility. If we have enough mobility we can do the rest. Unfortunately, the three Services have been used so much as a soup kitchen for the aircraft industry that the transport situation is nothing like what it should be. We have not got the right transports. They are available, but the wrong sort have to be bought so as to oblige the aircraft industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot include weapon development, or vehicles, or things of that sort in the debate. All that is in the Army Act about vehicles is requisitioning.

Mr. Paget: I will not go further along that line, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to emphasise that lack of transport will create considerable difficulty. We must have a very quick method of moving the forces up to war establishment in the event of our being faced by several crises at the same time
We welcome very much the boys' units to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would be glad to accept the invitation to visit them.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom: I will not endeavour to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the figures of rejections, but I look forward to hearing them from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I like the idea of recruits for the Catering Corps, put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also his reference to a service corps. Having served for several years in Singapore and Honk Kong, I quite agree with what he said.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their new appointments and on their very refreshing new approach to public relations which, I believe, is the key to good recruiting. Like my right hon. Friend, I am confident that after the falling off during the past 12 months recruiting from now on should gradually improve.
It is no use denying that the Army has had some very adverse publicity,


much of which has done a great deal to destroy the Army's good image. But, as has been pointed out, recruiting is not as bad as some right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and parts of the Press, make out, because the figure is within 95 per cent. of the target figure of 180,000.
I want to put forward a few ideas on recruiting which, I hope, are not too unconventional. The first question one must ask oneself is: what makes young men want to join the Army? Pay and conditions are a major draw and apparently there is to be a pay rise next April. This I welcome—of course, it will help recruiting for a short time—but money is not the only carrot to bring in recruits.
For the past year or so, great emphasis has been placed on welfare, amenities and married quarters. All of these, in a young married Army, are most important and must be absolutely first class. This summer I had the opportunity to visit several units in the Middle East and the Far East and saw the progress taking place in the various building programmes. Indeed, I think that the worst shortage of married quarters is in this country; but that is gradually being put right as well.
I feel that now, however, is the right time to switch from the welfare approach which we have been taking in the last year or so and to put much more emphasis on to the two "A"s—action and adventure—which a highly mobile and highly trained Army can certainly supply today. I would like to see an all-out recruiting drive for the S.A.S., the Parachute Regiment and the Commandos.
The special rôles of these regiments appeal to young men. I realise that such a drive might be to the detriment of some of the line regiments, but while we can attract these recruits I feel that we should take them. Perhaps we will be over strength for a time in these specialised units, but, unfortunately, it seems that during the next few years the so-called "fire brigade" units will be more important, both in the Far East and, perhaps, in the Middle East.
Another good recruiting line could be that "the Army will teach you a trade". In other words, young men could be

shown that if they joined the Army they would not and up as foot sloggers, but, at the end of their service, would be qualified for reasonable employment in civilian life. I am sure that much more emphasis must be put on training for trades. That would be a good recruiting draw and would also help to raise standards in the Army, which would certainly be useful. The military correspondent of the Daily Telegraph put his finger on the weak spot when he wrote last week:
Recruiting depends a lot on being ready to accept a man when the urge to join up is upon him. In this respect the 17-year-old is not at present catered for.
That is very true, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take another look at the joining-up age. I am still convinced that the Army loses many healthy young men who are mustard-keen during their last year at school, or on leaving school, but who cannot join until the age of 17½. I accept, of course, the excellence of the junior leader regiments and the boys' training units, but a lot of young men at this age want to go straight into the Army and to a depot.
Of course, I am aware of the arguments that, at 16½, a young man needs very specialised handling, but today young men are much more mature than previous generations were at that age. The depots have an intake of young drummers and bandsmen and this intake should be widened. We should consider something like a special training company consisting of recruits under 17½.
After all, once a young man settles down in industry, or comes under the influence of a girl friend, the Army usually loses him for ever. My right hon. Friend touched on this when he said that he was thinking up ways and means of attracting youth. We want to get young men interested and "clued up" about the Army. I would like to see a pilot scheme which would stimulate much more interest and knowledge of the Army among boys at 14 and upwards. The Army recruiting teams should have much closer liaison and association with youth clubs and the boy scouts, with organisations like the St. John Ambulance Brigade and/or the schools. It is hard to contact these young men once they leave their clubs


and various organisations, but while they are together they could be told much more about Service life.
I thought that it was an excellent idea when, last year, some young men spent a week-end with the Army. Young men were able to see the Army at first hand and also find out about the food, which is quite important to point to a young man at that age. I have found that a good active, colourful display is always worth 10 recruiting stands, or a dozen 16-sheet advertisements. This is the age when youths of 14 or 15 need help to make up their minds what profession they want to take up, and direct contact with youth clubs and other organisations would be helpful.
I suggest that our educational authorities should produce a type of Army course, with a special syllabus for the secondary modern schools and technological training colleges, which would tide over the Army-minded young man for a year or so. The Army could even give him a small retainer's bounty while he was waiting to join up.
I should like to say a word about the presentation of some of our Army propaganda for recruiting. It has certainly greatly improved during the last few years. I feel that county regiments and T.A. battalions have always a good coverage by their local Press, but the national Press, unfortunately, seems to seize on ail the misfortunes and they never give enough praise. This is where the Army public relations needs looking into.
I wonder in the past if the Press has been given enough up-to-date copy—whether it has been given the right kind of news material. These are things which have to be looked into. What I think makes an impact today and the right impression on a young man are T.V. and Pathénews items showing action, tough inter-Service training, especially training overseas. I think that the battalions which went to Canada and one which went to Australia is the type of news showing the Army overseas which needs exploiting by our national Press.
Actual news items are always better than direct recruiting propaganda films, which are good and getting better, but these young men are inclined to take

them with a pinch of salt. We have to march with the times. Next April the three Services literally will come under one roof, so why do we not try to combine the recruiting centres in some of our cities and large towns?
At present, I believe, the Royal Air Force takes in about eight to 10 airmen a week and receives 150 to 200 inquiries a week. If the three Services were all in one building, some youngsters who were turned down for one reason or another for the Royal Air Force might feel inclined to go to the Army or the Navy counter. If they were all in the same building I think it would help people in that way.
We have talked a lot about how to get recruits to join the Army, but it is just as important that more thought should be given to how to keep them once they have been recruited. The main problem is to keep them interested and fully employed and not allowed to get bored. Training programmes must be original and alive, which is extremely expensive, but I feel that every penny spent on it is well worth while. I was pleased to read the other day that there have been second thoughts whether free discharge within three months or' joining is not too soon. It hardly gives a young man long enough to settle down or make up his mind and I would have thought that six months was a much fairer period.
If the Army wants to be "with it"—or the latest expression, I believe is "switched on"—I would have thought that now would be a good time to revise some of the Army's traditional terminology. Next year we have the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Bill coming into effect, when some designations of the three Services will be changed. The Army has still several old-fashioned terms, like "other ranks", which sounds wrong, and "married quarters", which sounds stupid. Surely a better title could be thought up for the W.R.A.C.S., which sounds like "wrecks", and which is far from the case, because they are a magnificent body of women. I think that some of the old titles will have to be changed.
I have endeavoured to give some constructive ideas which, I hope, may help recruiting. The Minister has pointed out, quite rightly, that we are all inclined to overlook the simple fact that the best


recruiter is a satisfied customer. It is up to each unit to ensure that its men are both efficient and happy and then I think we shall continue to get recruits.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) about recruiting. Obviously, in recruiting, pay is a very important factor. We have been given indications through the Press that the Forces may expect an increase of pay next April and I should like to know whether, when the time comes, the. Government will do what they did 18 months ago and welsh on their obligations.
Then, the Grigg Report found in the Forces' favour, but when the time came to implement the finding they got only 50 per cent. of what it had been suggested they should have. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us firmly whether, when the next Grigg Report is published, the Forces can expect their rise next April to be the whole amount and not 50 per cent., as on the last occasion. That may be an important factor and great assistance to the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to follow up on his recruiting drive this winter and next year.
I want to confine the remainder of my remarks to what the Secretary of State had to say about discipline. He gave some important figures of the number of men court-martialled—more than 2,000 other ranks, a slight increase on the previous year, and 19 officers. He went on to deal with the number of appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which had risen from 29 to 31. He said that there had been an increase, a significant rise, in the number of appeals upheld by the Appeal Court, which was six in the last year. He said that he was carefully watching the position and that the Appeal Court's findings were being carefully studied. It is in this context that I want to deal with Sections 84 and 120 of the Army Act and with the issue of discipline.
In April of this year, the Courts-Martial Appeal Court heard an appeal following which Questions were asked by myhon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and myself and a number of others in connection with the court-martial which had given

rise to the appeal. I am concerned to know whether, following the disclosures of the remarks of the Appeal Court in that case, the Secretary of State has taken any steps to ensure that the procedure under the Act is now being followed and that the machinery which the Act set up is now satisfactory. At the Appeal Court hearing it transpired that the court-martial which had tried Major Cory had been very unsatisfactory. That is not only my view, but the view of the Appeal Court itself.
On 24th April, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East asked whether steps would be taken to expedite hearings at the Appeal Court and he was told by the Secretary of State that a searching inquiry would be held into every aspect of the case which had given rise to my hon. Friend's Questions. At that time, there was a good deal of disquiet and publicity in the Press because of the staggering delay between the court-martial and the appeal and because of the length of the court-martial. Seventeen months elapsed between the court-martial and the appeal.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) at that time suggested that as only about half-a-dozen cases a year came before the Appeal Court, there was no reason for the delay. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the figure was higher, but the hon. Member has made his point that in this court there could not be the staggering congestion to be found in many other courts. In whatever system of justice is operated, in the Army and elsewhere, there must be anomalies and injustices from time to time; but of Parliament has set up a procedure to remedy or mitigate those injustices, then, especially when the freedom of the individual is concerned, the system must be expeditious and must not allow the staggering delay which occurred in this case.
The peculiar features of this court-martial are that it was held in Kenya and lasted no less than 43 days. The whole of the evidence was taken in long-hand, even though shorthand writers were present, and there were 1,400 pages of transcript. The accused was in the witness box for more than a week. The Secretary of State said that there would be an exhaustive inquiry—"exhaustive "and not "exhausting" was the word he


used, although, in view of the Government's failure to produce results from that inquiry, he should have said "exhausting" and not "exhaustive".
The report in The Times on 10th April made some stringent observations on the hearing. It said that the Appeal Court said:
The trial…could only be described as astonishing. It must have involved great strain and the chances of confusion were obvious. There was a mistaken conception that the charges would be simple and there was a lack of proper preparation of the accountancy evidence. To this confusion were added the lack of proper inquiries and changes of front by the prosecution.
Some documents were lost and apparently the prosecution did not take any steps to make them available in time for the accused to deal with them.
The Appeal Court made this observation on the general deficiency charge:
…it ought never to have been brought, since there was no fraudulent conversion to justify the charge. The inclusion of the charge so muddled and confused the trial that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The court allowed the appeal on the grounds I have mentioned and because of that did not feel obliged to decide the third ground, which was the conduct of the trial. This is what concerns us, having regard to how the Act should be working.
The matter was left at that stage for two months, and I then asked the Secretary of State, on 3rd July, whether he was now able to tell us what he had been doing. The then Secretary of State said that he was sorry that the inquiry had taken so long, but that it was now in its final stages and that he hoped that hon. Members would not have long to wait. He went on to say:
If an inquiry is to have its effect, it must study every aspect of what is, in this case, a very involved matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 368.]
I concede immediately that this must have been a very involved matter. The Minister was pressed to say what he knew about the circumstances and admitted that he did not know when the inquiry had been set up, or who was conducting it, and he invited me to put down another Question. I did so on 10th July, when the right hon. Gentleman told me:

The documents are at present being studied by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and myself personally.
He was pressed about when he would be able to give the House the fruits of that study and he said:
My noble Friend and I are hoping to get together to discuss it later this week…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1217–8.]
The Minister said that he hoped to give a report to the House before the impending Recess. In fairness to the then Secretary of State, I should say that before the Recess he came to tell me that he was not in a position to make a report and that it would be made at a later stage.
Another four months have now passed, seven and a half months in all since 24th April when the issue was first raised in the House. What is wrong is that whatever the delays in the past and whatever the time this court-martial took, 43 days, whatever the staggering delay between the court-martial and the appeal, all that situation has now been aggravated by the Government's delay in publishing their report.
The court-martial itself was described by the Appeal Court as astonishing. I have never made any allegations about the manner in which the court-martial was held. I have left it to the Appeal Court to make its observations and I await the Government's report before making mine. However, I should like to know whether, in the meantime, it has been possible for similar occurrences to have been allowed and whether there has been any danger of a repetition of what has been described as an astonishing trial. Men in the Army are entitled to know and the public are entitled to know whether we have averted any possible danger of a repetition of this astonishing conduct. We have been told the number of cases that are heard by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court each year. The case to which I have been referring was not the only one about which there was complaint. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East who raised another case at that time.
This is an important issue, and one on which the Government have been stalling for far too long. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be able to tell us what has been happening, and what is the result of the


involved inquiries of the two ex-Secretaries of State for War and the Lord Chancellor. Last July, we were told that the previous Secretary of State for War was studying the matter personally, and I hope, therefore, that at this juncture, in December, 1963, the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what has been happening. The Army and the public are entitled to know. This was an unsatisfactory case in all its aspects, and the continued delays by the Government have added to the unsatisfactory nature of the whole affair.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I should like, first, to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he introduced this Order. I was particularly pleased to find that although he did not sound unduly depressed about the recruiting figures, he did not sound over joyous and did not give the impression, which we have sometimes been given during similar debates, that everything in the garden is lovely. Unfortunately, the current figures show that everything in the garden is not lovely. My right hon. Friend told the House that during one period last year a battalion was being recruited every week, but, unfortunately, during two months of this year only just over a battalion was recruited each month. This is a sad and worrying state of affairs.
I should like to add my comments to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend about the late Sir Frederic Hooper. His contribution to shaking up recruiting methods and the immediate recruiting response was remarkable, but I think that we ought to realise that he could not have achieved his success had it not been for the wholehearted way in which the Army accepted his ideas and carried them out with such detail and enthusiasm.
I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the junior leader battalions, because these units are not only of great potential use to the Army as a means of getting first-class recruits, but, because the trade unions have accepted the qualifications of the persons who complete these courses, they make a real contribution to the skilled manpower of the nation as a whole. I appreciate that these units may be extravagant in the use of the Regular soldiers who are needed to look after

and train these young people, but I hope that in the national interest my right hon. Friend will find it possible to continue giving them his full support, and that the trade unions will continue to accept the qualifications of those who pass through these units.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the target that is required to have a full Regular Army. He also said that the balance within the Army had improved considerably over the last 12 months. This is very good news, because the situation in some units of the Army was desperate due to the lack of specialists. When the strategic reserve—or some units of it—was being prepared for an emergency we were faced with the farcical situation that certain specialist units from other so-called fighting formations had to be moved to bring it up to a balanced force. What I want to know—and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with this in winding up—is whether, with a figure of 180,000, it is possible to maintain the units at present in the British Army. I am very doubtful whether this figure can maintain the units that we have, and I wonder whether it may be necessary to have a complete reorganisation to get an efficient all-Regular Army of about 180,000.
I should like to follow up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) about recruiting in other parts of the Commonwealth. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is on a very good wicket when he refers to the Maltese as potential recruits, because it is possible that Malta will become independent very shortly, and we are not sure whether she will remain in the Commonwealth. We have seen the difficulties which can be caused by having non-British troops in the Army because of the political pressures that can be brought to bear at home, and there is already one cloud on the horizon in a similar case.
There are, however, lots of other areas within the Commonwealth where we have had experience of the magnificent fighting qualities of the local troops, and from which we could surely recruit people for the Army. The Seychelles have produced a number of recruits who have been successfully absorbed into


the British Army, and so has Fiji. During the emergency in Malaya the Fijian battalions proved themselves to be exceptional. When, recently, a move was made to recruit more Fijians, the numbers that applied were out of all proportion to the vacancies available, and I understand that the latest Fijian recruits have been successfully absorbed into the Army.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will consider including an in creased number of these wonderful Fijian fighting troops in the Army. He might even consider establishing a battalion out there to carry out the preliminary training for the Army so that the recruits are partly trained before joining their regiments here, or in Germany, or in any other part of the Commonwealth where they may be required to serve.
But all those suggestions are palliatives, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, with the fresh and balanced approach that he brought to these matters when he introduced this Order this afternoon, will remember, first and foremost, that what we require is an Army of adequate strength now, and not in two years' time.
If an army is to be of any use in negotiations and in the furthering of our foreign policy, we must have it now and not at some far distant date which none of us can foresee. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will treat this serious drop in recruitment which we have seen this year very seriously and will not just hope that, somehow or other, the figures will return to what they were last year. If he does that, then I am sure that he will have to take some pretty drastic action in order to keep the units of the British Army even viable.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: With reference to recruitment and enlisting, I think that it is time that the House of Commons and the British people looked at one serious factor concerning the size of the Army and its purposes and commitments. I know that I should be out of order today if I went into the philosophy of defence in relation to foreign policy, but to hon. Members on both sides of the House it is quite clear

that we must ask ourselves about this and get clear what the purposes of defence are, what the function of the Army should be in the nuclear age, how it is to work, where it is to work and why it is to work. We should then look at recruitment in relation to those factors.
I do not know how far hon. Members have studied the various reports which have appeared from time to time, or the Statement on Defence for 1963, but if one looks at the tenth Report of the Estimates Committee, which is in the Vote Office but which has not yet been debated by the House, one realises that there is an outstanding problem—it is the only one that I shall have time to deal with in the 10 minutes or so at my disposal today—which we must face. It is the case of the commanding officer. I will take only the Army because we are dealing with that Service today, but it applies to all the other Services as well.
A commanding officer is much more than simply a commanding officer in many spheres of activity. He is also the mayor of a town. He has similar functions to those of a mayor. He is responsible for health services, hospitals, schools and the impedimenta, since it was decided that certain types of recruitment and enlisting should take place and that we should have a married man's army, that clutter up the Army in all the vital spheres of the world. This has a retarding effect upon the competency of the firing power and the teeth of that Army in any one place. The fact that the tail of the Army is so fat with its schools, its hospitals, its obstetric services and its gynaecological services means that it cannot move along. How can we get recruitment that will give us greater firing power and teeth, if I may put it in that crude way?
We are told in this Statement on Defence that by 1964 we shall have in Germany alone over 15,000 families in hired accommodation. We are also building quarters for 6,800 families in Germany at the present time. Those quarters and hirings have to be paid for and there have to be the ancillary services. There have to be schools. In Aden, we have a school for 750 children. We are building a new school in Singapore for 1,000 children. This service must be available. The Ministry of Education


and others are involved. With a central organisation of defence it may be that later we shall get some clarity about this.
The point I wish to make is that we have struck an average cost for this. In some cases the married man's Army is costing us £1,200 to nearly £1,500 per head more than the single man's Army. How can we afford this expenditure ad lib? Can we have a married man's Army Sek Kong in the new territories beyond Kowloon and Hong Kong right out to Jamaica, for which the British taxpayer has to pay, as well as other commitments? What can be done about it?
The tenth Report of the Estimates Committee makes a recommendation on this matter. It says that not enough attention has been paid to it and that the Committee was not satisfied that sufficient thought was paid to the full cost and implications of married, accompanied, overseas tours. As I have said, the needs of the family make it very difficult to get an efficient machine. As a result of this our population overseas is two and a half to three times greater than it would have been if we had not had the married man's Army. How can we get out of this situation? We believe that it is a situation which should be studied seriously and that the House should pay attention to it.
I will give one example. We are putting up married quarters in El Adem and Tobruk for 101 families. These quarters are to cost £700,000. At the price of houses in this country it would take 60 or 70 years to work off the cost of these quarters. We shall get no compensation for them and no one could ever say that we shall get any return in cash. Could we not have a new approach to the matter?
I realise that we cannot always count the cost when strategic matters are of paramount importance. The cost in dollars or pounds cannot always be measured against strategic necessities. But strategic necessities will always have to carry overseas the burden of the married man's family. Were we to stop married men from going overseas it would interfere with recruitment. Therefore, we cannot put forward a diktat. It would adversely affect recruitment if it went out from the House that no married men would be sent overseas.
I do not think that that would help either side of the House, or the purpose for which we are here, so I hope that hon. Members do not think that I am putting forward the wild idea that no more married quarters should be built overseas, fn Kowloon, we are spending £602,000. In Kenya, we spent £6 million, even though we knew at the time that we were coming out of Kenya in a year or two. We spent this money on quarters and other impedimenta needed in the modern married man's Army.
We on the Estimates Committee ask that this problem should be examined. I even suggest a Davies plan. I shall give only one example because I do not want to delay the House in dealing with its business. Take the case of 15,000 families going into Germany. If it is to cost nearly £1,000 a year more—and, further overseas, still more—because those men are married than if they were single, what would be wrong in making this suggestion to a married man? Tell him that it would cost £700, £800, £900 more for him to go overseas and that we would put into the bank a lump sum of £500 or £600 for him. He could not buy himself out of the Army with it, but, regulated by his discipline and conduct, after he had done his tour, that money would have earned interest in the bank. When he came back into civil life it would make him a property-owning democrat. In passing, I hope that he would not be a Tory.
The Government should go into this suggestion. I have made it only "off the cuff", but I believe that we could get thousands of married men who would be prepared to consider it. I have discussed this in Singapore, Hong Kong and other parts of the world with troops and with the highest ranking officers. Some disagreed, but when I put it to a group and asked, "Do you think it all bunkum?", after consideration some of them said the idea was worth investigating. I put it as an idea for lessening our great expenditure overseas, bringing greater benefit to married men and making it easier for commanding officers overseas to attend to military matters to which they should attend.
I should like to explain this at greater length, but that would be unfair to the House, in view of the rest of the business that we have before us. I


hope that the Minister will go into this suggestion seriously and not cast it aside. He might find that more people than he expects would accept it. I am not asking for any enforcement; it would be voluntary. We might be able to afford to bring a man home twice a year to see his wife and children. It would make him a happier soldier, and give him a bounty which would be worth while. With it he could buy a house when he had done his service. I hope that this idea will not be cast aside, but will be considered by this or any other Government in the near future.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The value of the interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) would depend on whether or not the money offered was extra. If it were to be deducted from what married men have at their disposal to spend at present I am not sure how practical the suggestion would be. The hon. Member will know of Mr. Parkinson's law, that expenditure rises to meet income. In my tours overseas I have not found many men with families who reckoned they were well off in their stations. They have undertaken various commitments, such as the purchase of a car or a 'fridge and have to keep up the payments. The suggestion is worth while studying, however, and I hope that it will be considered.
I wish to raise one or two miscellaneous points. I apologise for not being in the House when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate, because I was attending to duties elsewhere. I hope that I shall not refer to something with which he has already dealt in his speech. I should like to know how the new provision of the Army Act and the stoppage of a sum from pay is working. At the time when it was proposed it received the approbation of everyone who dealt with the matter. It was believed that it would give the C.O. greater initiative and greater freedom and also be appropriate punishment for many offences.
It is perhaps the besetting sin of all our Armed Forces that, in spite of our ideas about ourselves as a race, we

sometimes lack individual initiative. In the Services we wait to be told from above what to do, whereas those in some other forces do not do so. I am sure that this step in discipline, giving the C.O. much more complete control over his own station, was a good thing to introduce. I should like to hear how it has been working.
Secondly, I ask if my right hon. Friend is entirely satisfied with the form of financial discipline applied to the Army today. It seems that the C.O. in the unit is entrusted with enormous responsibilities, but when it comes to spending a little actual cash he is regarded as a potential crook or a financial idiot and has to account in great detail for every tiny item.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned courts martial. Discipline in the Army, combined with the civil rights of a soldier as a citizen, is very difficult. Any courts-martial system will suffer from this difficulty, but I wonder whether the courts-martial system is entirely appropriate to the Army today and the age in which we live. We have to keep courts martial for disciplinary offences in the Army with the most severe sanction in the last resort, but I believe that, as in civil courts, a great deal of courts-martial work is occupied with motoring offences which have very little to do with Army discipline. I think that is the reason why so many more courts martial are held than used to be the case. I wonder whether the system in this motoring age is adapted as it should be.
When I visited B.A.O.R. recently, I found like everyone else who has been there, that some infantry battalions were very much better recruited than others. I was not able to tell why that should be so. I should like to know in detail what help the commands or the War Office give to brigades and regiments to recruit in their own areas. Looking at the units on the ground, there seems no good reason why some should be overfull and some lacking the men they need. I should like to know what courses are run and what is done to help a unit, quite apart from national propaganda. What does the War Office do to help each unit to recruit to maximum capacity?
When I was in Germany I saw the deplorable effect on one or two units of being landed in areas where there were no, or very few, married quarters. That seems a tremendous obstacle to the proper deployment of troops, especially in Germany. We cannot expect discipline, satisfaction or recruiting to be as good as it should be if, as I found there, a unit is moved into an area in which two units have been for a long time so that they have mopped up all available hirings and accommodation. There is literally nowhere for the families to go. I saw very disappointing arrangements made for the third unit in such a case. It was not surprising that that unit had no fewer than 34 N.C.O.s proposing to buy themselves out of the Army, because they could not put up with the accommodation for families, or separation from their families.
I know that a great effort is being made in Germany to build married quarters, but I was appalled, as the hon. Member for Leek was, by the lack of mobility which this situation causes for our troops. There are very few places in Germany where accommodation can be found for them. Whether it is forward strategy or backward strategy, the situation is the same; we have to put our troops somewhere near their wives and children, and this is the most awkward business from the military point of view.
Both the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend mentioned recruiting people from outside this country into the Army. I have several times referred to this with enthusiasm, but I have come to realise that there is a difficulty because there are not now many Europeans anxious to join the British Army. There is no shortage of work in Europe, and we could not rely on recruiting large numbers in this way.
I should know, but I do not—and I apologise for putting the question—what is the quota of people from outside this country or of foreigners accepted into the Army. I believe that there is a quota laid down as a guide for recruiting from outside.

Mr. Paget: It is one in 50 for foreigners, but there is no limit on members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should have known that. I think that it would be difficult to exceed a certain proportion of such recruits in any unit. The way in which the British Army lives in peace time, very largely abroad, means that each unit is very much a family, and if we introduced people with different backgrounds, and families of very different social organisation and different religions, the commanding officer would be trying to command two separate units which did not work together. If we want to recruit into the Army fairly large numbers of people from outside these shores, it will be essential to recruit whole units and not individuals, so that these people, with their own customs, their own type of food and their own religion, could serve together.
There is a large wastage of members of the W.R.A.C., and if one sees these ladies it is not surprising that so many people want to marry them. But they would be recruited in greater numbers if they were allowed to serve abroad much more than they are at the moment. In the B.A.O.R. there were more duties which these girls could be permitted to do. At the moment many duties are reserved to men. I feel sure that the extra recruits we could get if they were given greater opportunities to serve would be well worth while.
The Army Act is silent about whether there is a separate code of discipline for the Gurkhas. I do not know whether there is a different code of discipline for this fine body of men, but I was delighted the other day to read that my right hon. Friend said that the reduction in the numbers of the Gurkhas had been postponed. While I was pleased with that announcement, I did not like the word "postponed'', and I hope that my right hon. Friend,will give the House an assurance that "postponed" was written into the brief by an extra-cautious Treasury and that he did not wish to say "postponed".

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The last occasion on which we discussed the operation of the Act was notable for a positive, indeed categorical, statement


by the then Minister that the Government had determinedly set their face against the reintroduction of conscription and National Service. I should very much welcome a reaffiirmation of that policy by the Minister in view of statements which have been made about the decline in recruiting. As reported in The Times last Friday, there was a definite statement that there had been a substantial drop in recruiting, and in the Daily Telegraph there was an analysis of the causes of the drop.
I am certain that this problem is very much in the Minister's mind and I should like to know whether the War Office take the same attitude this year as they took last year. Parliament and the country are entitled to know. The young people, in particular, want to know. In view of the recruiting position, do the Government still adhere to the statement, so clearly and explicitly made at this time last year by the then Minister, that the War Office and the Government have set their faces definitely against National Service and conscription?
Recently kites for the reintroduction of National Service have been flown by eminent and notable military people. There was a speech by Lord Montgomery in another place in which he came out in favour of some sort of National Service. I always read his speeches with the greatest interest, although his views are not shared by my constituents. But his arguments in another place will, I feel, be heard frequently during the next few months, especially as the recruiting situation is apt to deteriorate.
The alternative to National Service is to reduce our commitments. Lord Montgomery's argument is simple. It is the argument of the old soldier. He wants a big Army. But he advanced at the same time the argument that we could well bring about a reduction of our forces in Germany. The argument was that we are keeping 55,000 soldiers in Germany at a cost of £80 million, upsetting our balance of payments. This speech will be read by potential recruits to the Army. I agree with Lord Montgomery in the view that keeping these 55,000 soldiers in Germany is a waste of both manpower and money. Lord Montgomery knows more than I do about the situation in Germany, because he was Deputy

Supreme Commander of N.A.T.O. for many years. When he assures us that we have too many soldiers in Germany, his argument should be listened to with respect.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member is tending to go much too far in his arguments. It is not in order in the debate to deal with strategic considerations.

Mr. Wigg: If my hon. Friend intends to quote Lord Montgomery as a great authority, he must surely quote him as a whole. Lord Montgomery not only said that we should come out of Germany but said that he would impose conscription.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I intervene to point out that quoting from a noble Lord in another place who is not a member of the Government would be out of order.

Mr. Hughes: I will leave questions of strategy. One of the questions which a recruit naturally asks himself is, "Where am I going to if I join the Army?". One of the main places he is likely to be sent to is Germany. I come to the question of the discipline of our units in Germany. I believe that since last year's debate there has been a great deal of discussion about the conduct of our troops in Germany, especially at Minden. This links up with the question of married quarters. If great military authorities say, "We do not want to keep any more soldiers; we want to reduce the number of our soldiers in Germany," the question which naturally arises is whether recruits will join the Army.
It is true that there have been very regrettable offences against discipline, especially by members of Scottish units. I would be the last to justify in any way the conduct of these soldiers. They appear to have been drawn from certain places near Glasgow which have a certain record of lawlessness. It is understandable that in these cases sentences have been imposed by court martial which have meant men being sent to prison with hard labour and discharged from the Army. I wonder if it is any good imposing such sentences. The men are no longer soldiers. They become ordinary prisoners. They are a


burden on the nation as prisoners. If a soldier is found to be unfit for the Army, why should he not be discharged from the Army and so find his way back into civil life?
There will be other criticisms of Army routine. I should like to know how many soldiers are in what are called detention barracks. Is the number less, or is it more? Exactly what are the figures? Do they illustrate, or do they not, the statement made in this debate that the morale of the Army is very high?
I turn to the question of recruiting. In my constituency nobody joins the Army. At least, a very insignificant number of young people join it. I remember asking the former Secretary of State how many recruits there had been from Ayrshire during a period of three months some time last year. To my great surprise he jubilantly replied to me and crushed me with the Answer that the recruiting in South Ayrshire had gone up by 50 per cent. I did not know where the recruits had come from. When I ultimately got the figures, I found that the figure had risen in a month from four to six.
There is some reason why young people in my constituency do not join the Army. They are just as patriotic as anybody else. They like their country as much as anybody else. Even if I went on to the recruiting platform in every village in South Ayrshire, I am sure that the net number of recruits who would join the Army after I had addressed them in this patriotic way would not exceed three.
This applies not only to my constituency. It is not due entirely to my attitude. It applies also in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who advocates National Service. I believe that there is some deeper reason why recruits do not roll up and why the number is decreasing and, I believe, will continue to do so. It is for the simple reason that the modern young man does not know what is to be the function of the Army in a possible war. We do not know what will happen to the soldiers in Germany in a nuclear war. We are frequently given different prophecies of what is likely to happen in a nuclear war, or in a conventional war, or in a

war of any kind. Nobody who thinks and watches television programmes and follows what is going on in the world can seriously tell the Army what its job is likely to be in the next war. Frankly, I do not know the answer. I do not know that a rational case for appealing to recruits to join the Army in 1963 can be made out.
One argument is that it is good for them to be under discipline. I was surprised to find this argument in the conclusion of Lord Montgomery's speech. One statement he made was that National Service would at any rate result in the Beatles getting their hair cut. I do not know why they should get their hair cut. I do not understand that that argument is likely to bring young men into the Army at present. Why should a soldier need to have his hair cut in a certain way? Why should not soldiers be allowed to wear beards? [Laughter.] My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) laughs. I have myself been asked why the young man who wants to join the Army is told that, if he goes into the Army, he will have to cut off his beard, whereas if he joins the Navy he can keep his beard.

Lord Robert Grosvenor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some soldiers are allowed to wear beards?

Mr. Hughes: I was not aware of that. If the hon. Member wishes to develop that point later, I shall be very pleased indeed to have expert information upon this point.

Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend is interested in a reason, the traditional reason why soldiers are precluded from wearing beards is that a beard is a convenient thing to get hold of when you are cutting somebody's head off, and that occurs much more rarely in ships.

Mr. Hughes: That was a really blood thirsty explanation. I must confess that I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for it. Soldiers wore beards when the Prime Minister's ancestors advanced over the Border and it is worth remembering that some extremely successful military manoeuvres have been conducted in recent years by people who have worn beards. In Cub a


for example, the commander-in-chief and several of his aides-de-camp wore luxuriant beards.
I doubt whether the Beatles are likely to rush to their nearest recruiting office to join the Army upon hearing Lord Montgomery's remark that if they do so they will have their hair cut in a different style. I mention this to show that appeals for recruits for the Army must be made in a common-sense way and must not be frivolous.
It is said that, sooner or later, the recruiting figures will decline until the point will be reached when a form of selective military service will have to be imposed by any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) frequently advances this argument. But who will be selected? What is the idea behind strengthening the Army by selective conscription? I understand that the modern Army must be a part of a great organisation, equipped with modern transport, and that, because it must be mechanised, it must contain skilled mechanics, electricians, fitters and so on. Those who advance this argument must realise that these are exactly the people we urgently need in industry.
I understand that a man who is skilled enough to maintain and repair an Army tank is just the person needed to look after a steam roller. I am convinced that such a man is more useful when working with a steam roller in industry than when manœuvring and maintaining a tank. If people are drawn from civilian life—electricians, mechanics, engineers and so on—into the Army it will be a sheer waste of manpower.
There is a shortage of officers in the Army, and in last year's debate we considered this problem. What kind of young man is wanted to officer the modern Army? Drives are frequently held in Scottish universities in an effort to get officer recruits. For example, I was informed recently of such a drive at Glasgow University. Are the Government aware that the young men in their early twenties whom they are attempting to attract are urgently needed as teachers? When I read that the Minister is anxious to obtain young people from our universities to become Army officers I cannot help pointing out that we are short of 3,500 teachers in Scotland.
As I said last year, the Minister is up against an almost insuperable problem. There is no rush to join the Army today and I do not see the slightest possibility of the recruiting drive succeeding. To illustrate this, it is worth noting a report which appeared in the Daily Express about three weeks ago. It told of an interview in Los Angeles or San Francisco. A young man, the son of a distinguished soldier, had gone to be educated in America. When asked by the Daily Express correspondent "Why do you not join the Army?", he replied, "I went into some depôts and did not like them". This young man became a student at the University of California. I cannot reproach him for his conduct, and it is worth pointing out that this young gentleman is the son of the distinguished soldier, the Duke of Gloucester.
If the average young person in Britain discovers that there is disillusionment and dislike felt towards the Army, and that he has no understanding of what the Army is doing and is meant to do, I cannot see how the recruiting drive can succeed. It is for this reason that I must repeat what I said last year—that the Minister is up against an almost insuperable problem. The right hon. Gentleman must think up an alternative to the scheme of selective service. He must examine our commitments and reduce them. There will not be a rush to join the Army and, therefore, our whole military policy must be based on a frank realisation of these facts.

5.47 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not wish to detain the House for long but merely to raise a few important points. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that my right hon. Friend would not get the number of recruits he requires. Many hon. Members were fearful that this would happen some time ago, but my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the methods he has adopted and the success that has been achieved through his recruiting drive.
It must be remembered that there are always in this country a number of men who wish to join the Army. That number will always be slightly below our requirements. Our task, therefore, is to attract the marginal person and so get over the


difficulty of balancing the figures as between those who intend to join and those who need to be persuaded to join. We must, at the same time, consider our commitments and in some way economise with the forces we have. We must ensure that every man who wants to join the Army is given a proper and responsible job. To do this we should attract a different type of person and, perhaps, increase the civilian services, similar to the way in which my right hon. Friend already has, and look further a field, including the Commonwealth, for people who would be prepared to do certain non-military duties.
There is a precedent for doing this. Before the war the Army in India employed two categories of non-combatant people, the enrolled and the non-enrolled, which left other men available for combat duties. If we took Commonwealth recruits into these two categories—the first to be, perhaps, locally employed in their country of origin and assured that they would not be employed except for local defence purposes, and the second comprised of non-combatant forces so as to enlarge the number of combatants in the Army—it might help to solve some of our recruiting problems.

Dr. Alan Thompson: The hon. Member is making a most interesting point. Would he explain it further, and would he suggest that recruitment to responsible positions in the Armed Forces should be conducted amongst Commonwealth immigrants to this country?

Dr. Glyn: As I understand the Army Act, there is no bar on anyone joining the Army, whether he be an immigrant or any other member of the Commonwealth. The only bar is on the proportion of foreigners who can join, this being a historical matter to make sure that we do not have too many foreigners in the Services.
Another vitally important aspect is that of married quarters. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal in this respect, but if we could say to someone thinking of joining the Army, "You'll be guaranteed quarters," I do not believe that we would ever be short of recruits in the foreseeable future. The problem is not only the number of married quarters but the difficulties encountered in their administration. If a

man is posted overseas, his wife may have to leave the quarters. I know that my right hon. Friend has these matters in mind, and if he can solve this problem it will make a great difference.
Married quarters in Germany present a very real difficulty because of the shortage of labour and building materials there. Has my right hon. Friend thought of overcoming that obstacle by telling N.A.T.O. of our difficulties and persuading them to impress on local civil administrations in Germany the importance of these quarters? If town planning difficulties arise over the erection of quarters, is it possible to put portable buildings on existing Army sites which, technically, are part of the War Department in Germany? That would probably overcome some of my right hon. Friend's town planning difficulties in Germany.
As my right hon. Friend has said, there has been an important advance in military discipline in that it is now possible to use one of the strongest penalties—the fine. A fine in the Services means, of course, deduction from pay. Many of the present punishments, such as confinement to barracks, are out of date, and deduction from pay is a far more practical and acceptable punishment.
We could economise considerably in our accounting system by authorising regimental commanders to write off larger sums than at present, thereby doing away with such things as the courts of inquiry, which entail a great loss of time for officers and men, and often mean nothing.
We must also impress on recruits that in the Amy they will acquire a trade that will be useful and worthwhile in civil life. There is a difficult gap between the time when a boy leaves school and his joining the Army. When, and if, the school leaving age is raised to 16, it might be possible—and perhaps it is not too early to start work on this now—to find a more practical way of bridging that gap of years. If the school leaving age were raised to 16, it might even be possible to allow recruitment at that age.
It is vitally important that we get the right type of officer. As I have suggested to my right hon. Friend on many occasions, one of the difficulties is that


if officer recruits go to Sandhurst, they get a very good military training but one that is rather limited in terms of civilian employment. I know that my right hon. Friend has it in mind to broaden the syllabus at Sandhurst, and to increase the number of vacancies for officers at universities, but would it not be better to lengthen and broaden the scope of the Sandhurst course and make it more like a university course, with a degree at the end of it?
At the end of his service, the officer would then have something to offer to industry. He would have a qualification that was usable in civilian life. At the moment, Sandhurst training is not really accepted as a full academic qualification. If my right hon. Friend intends to draw up the syllabus, I ask him seriously to consider a course with some sort of degree at the end of it—either an external degree or a special degree—so that the man will have something to offer later to a civilian employer. That, in itself, would be an inducement to men to offer themselves as officer recruits.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: It has been asked; what makes young men join the Army? It would be more appropriate to ask; what stops them from joining the Army? As a young man, I was unemployed for a year, and I seriously considered joining the Army, as I could find no other kind of employment. I was always stopped by the fact that joining meant giving up my freedom. That is what stops young men joining, and that is what we have to alter if we are to get the recruits we require. On joining the Army, a man becomes virtually a slave He gets all sorts of silly orders which, however unreasonable they may be, must be carried out.
We must give our Service men the right to leave when things get too bad for them—and by that I do not mean when they are in a dangerous situation but when they are in an intolerable situation, and can no longer put up with silly restrictions. We have heard about hair cutting, but there are hundreds of other restrictions that can be most unreasonable. A man may be told, "Get up early tomorrow morning, do a certain

job, and you will get away early". When he goes to the bus queue for the football match, along comes someone who orders him to do guard duty. He can do nothing about it. These are every-day occurrences, and they all help to prevent men from joining. If we give them the right to leave, we remove the difficulty of recruitment
It has been suggested that we should search the world for recruits. It has been suggested that we should give bounties of up to £600. That is nonsense when, at the same time, there are great numbers of unemployed. We cannot find jobs for them, yet the same people will not join the Army. What is the difference between Army and ordinary jobs? The only real difference is that in joining the Army a man gives up his freedom, and people are no longer prepared to do that even to get a job. If we remove that obstacle we have removed our recruiting difficulty.
Unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I believe that we have to defend ourselves. We have to find the men to do that—and they are there; all we have to do is to remove the stupid restrictions that take away their freedom. If we solve that problem, we shall have solved the basic problem and all the other silly problems, too. That is the quickest way to solve the problem.
It has been suggested that people would not go overseas. My experience was that, during the war, the people who wanted to go overseas were rarely sent, and, very often, those who did not want to go were sent. I was one of the latter, so I know what happens. In the Royal Air Force, if a man has a qualification, he is, more often than not, employed in some other capacity. An experienced gamekeeper finishes up as a bank clerk, and a bank clerk is put on cleaning lavatories. This is the sort of unreasonable and illogical thing that happens, and the quickest and surest way to cure the ill is to give people the right to terminate their Service employment when they are treated unfairly.
Again, it has been suggested that we should not get people to do dangerous jobs, but experience belies this. In the Royal Air Force, in which I served during the war, the most dangerous job, undoubtedly, was as a member of


air crew, yet there was no lack of volunteers. I know this because I was one who was rejected. I know what I am talking about, and I speak from bitter experience. These are the facts, and I repeat that the quickest way to solve the recruiting problem is to remove the one thing which makes the Armed Services different from any other kind of job. We must give men their freedom.
It is said that we should lose a lot of money if we trained men and then allowed them to leave. Does not this apply to any job? If a man goes into industry, does not the employer spend a lot of money on training him, and, if he leaves, is not all that money lost? Yet no one suggests that it is not profitable business for the employer to do the training. Therefore, if it is profitable for private firms, corporations and nationalised industries, would it not be equally profitable for Her Majesty's forces? I am sure that it would.
The root of all our difficulty in getting recruits lies in the fact that people know that they give up their freedom when they join the Army. Remove this basic objection, and we shall solve the recruiting problem.

6.2 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I do not think that I should have intervened, in the debate had I not heard the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one thing. He has put his finger on something about which there is, I believe, great general misunderstanding. His experience, unfortunate as some of it appears to have been, was gained at a time when we were at war and when we had conscription. It has long been the opinion among Regular soldiers, sailors and airmen that any Service which happens to have conscription is never as good to live in as a Service which is entirely voluntary.
If the hon. Gentleman has been unfortunate—I dare say that he has been—in the disappointment which he must have had when he was not accepted for air crew, I can well understand his feeling a little bitter about it. There are a good many people who have felt bitter about these things. But, as a former Regular soldier for 11½ years, I beg him not to assume too readily that his Ser-

vice, the Royal Air Force, or either of the other two Services, when they are on a Regular footing would tolerate that sort of thing or put up with it for very long.
My own belief is that the good Regular Service, well officered—it must be well officered—can offer a man as good a life as any other profession or calling can offer. I say that quite deliberately, for family reasons as well as out of my own personal experience. I am absolutely convinced that the Army today can offer a young man as good an opportunity for the future, both after he leaves as well as while he is in the Army, as any profess on could offer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If that is so, why does the hon. Gentleman object to the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) makes, that, if they do not like the Army, soldiers should have freedom to leave it?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am not objecting to anything the hon. Gentleman has said so far. In fact, I congratulated him on putting his finger on something about which there is considerable misunderstanding. I repeat my congratulations to him for doing that, and I agree that, if we can put the finger on things which are deterring people from joining the Army, we should do so.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the loss of freedom. This is very often cited as a deterrent by many people, especially those who have never been in any of the three Armed Services. Often, of course, something which is in prospect, something unknown, is more frightening than the actual experience. There are those who do not like the idea of being disciplined in any way. It is, I suppose, regarded as one of the greatest freedoms that a man should be able to do as he likes.
Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has been quoted on one or two occasions already, and I think that it is worth repeating now something which he said, not in another place—that proper liberty is the freedom to do the right thing. True liberty is not freedom to do exactly what one likes regardless of the consequences to others. It seems to me that this doctrine might well be propagated a little more vigorously in some seats of education where all too seldom nowadays it is propagated.
I believe that my right hon. Friend would be well advised to look again at the cadet forces. If there were more cadet forces in schools, and if headmasters and the teaching profession were more behind them, we could have better recruitment than we have now because experience in a cadet force can give a young boy the opportunity to understand a little of what discipline really is and how essential it is, if one has a certain job to do in the world, be it keeping the peace at home or keeping the peace abroad, that there should be discipline and that people should be prepared to accept discipline automatically. This is one of the great problems.
All I say to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who is an old sparring partner of mine in the House, is that he knows very well that he gets away with an awful lot of misrepresentation of the Army simply because he is a sincere pacifist. It is very easy to assume, when the hon. Gentleman is speaking, that he speaks from personal experience of service in the Armed Forces, whereas, of course, he has always assiduously avoided it, for reasons which we respect.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: For about three years, I was a member of Her Majesty's Forces. I was classified as a soldier, and I was court-martialled five times. My position was not that of someone who was outside the Army. I know more about the inside of detention barracks and guardrooms than any other Member of the House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I realise that the hon. Gentleman knew that side of it—he has told us that before—but I did not realise that he had quite so long as a serving member of the forces. I thought that he did his best to avoid becoming one, and, having become one, he did his best to get out again, although certain people kept him there much longer than he would have liked.
I only hope that those who study the report of this debate will bear in mind that misconceptions are sometimes expressed in the House of Commons about what the Armed Forces really involve. The hon. Gentleman is a great deal older than I am, and I think that his memory may, perhaps, have become a little coloured over the years. To put it mildly,

his views of what the Army is like are really out of date in relation to what it is really like today.
In fact, many a man, in spite of ideas he might have had about the lack of freedom before he joined, has found Service life much more enjoyable than he thought it would be once he has been through his recruit training. This is an important point in reply to the suggestion by one of my hon. Friends that it might be a good thing if men were allowed to get out of the Army at an early stage. I am by no means sure that it would be a good thing. I am much more inclined to the view that, unless a man is able to get right through his recruit training, and know what it feels like to be a trained soldier, he will have a feeling for the rest of his life that he ran away from something for fear of the unknown.
That is never very conducive to self-respect. While we must ensure that there is no unnecessary restriction of freedom, especially off parade, in any of the three Armed Forces, nevertheless we must, at the same time, make it clear that if we are to have Armed Forces we are determined to make them good Armed Forces, which they never will be unless a really effective system of discipline operates in them. Anybody who pretends anything else is wasting a great many people's time and an immense amount of millions of public money.
We in this House have a duty to say that we want the Armed Forces of the Crown to be adequate to fulfil the commitments in which we are involved. At the same time, we want to ensure that those forces are adequately equipped, that they are properly disciplined and that they can do their job. It is up to us not to encourage those who would have them otherwise. That is the great danger of too much talk about the awful loss of freedom in the Armed Forces. There are a great many men who are proud to have served in them, in all ranks, and who have had the greatest fun of their lives in them. I am certain that if the average young man goes into any of the three Services, he will find there as wonderful a life as he can find anywhere else and, what is more, training for life when he leaves the Forces. That is the great thing about them.
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) concerning married quarters, particularly in B.A.O.R. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to remember that those regiments which have been stationed in Germany for some time are in an extremely privileged position over the regiments which arrive some time later. If a unit which has been in Germany for some years is moved to another part of Germany, and to a part where a unit has moved in fairly recently, that new unit may find that its married families slip backwards on the list for married quarters because the people who have been there longer have priority to move their families in, too. This is a thorny problem and I do not underestimate its complexity.
In the end, there is only one major step which will substantially help to solve the problem in a short time. That is, if we can get the rotation of units to Germany so much more frequent that the families can be left back here at home. If we could get that sort of system operating not only shall we ensure that as many units as possible have experience of serving in B.A.O.R., which is supposed to be the flower of the British Army, but, at the same time, we shall avoid the vast expense which is involved in moving families, we shall cut down the need to transport a Welfare State to Germany to the extent which we now have to do with the Army, and we shall probably have a lot more satisfied families who do not have to "up sticks" every few months or so or to live in very great squalor, which is what often happens simply because there is nothing else.
It is easy enough sometimes for those who have the wherewithal to employ others to move house for them. I have done it nine time in three years, so I known a little bit about moving house. I realise, of course, that it is great deal more difficult for those who cannot employ others to do much for them. I am certain that of all the amenities in the Army today, this is the one which has the biggest shortfall from what is desirable. We shall solve it only if we ensure that as many units as possible move frequently in rotation, so that their families

can be left at home permanently. I believe that they would be much happier if that were done.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to say publicly what I have said privately to the Secretary of State for War and tender to him my congratulations on his appointment and express the earnest hope that in the short time he will be Secretary of State for War he will succeed in solving some of the problems which confront him.
I should like to address my remarks in the first instance to the Continuation Order. This is the first time that we have had such a debate since the passing of the Army Act, 1961, which was the second rhythm of five years. It is not a waste of time to remind ourselves how this came into being. Although the debate is sparsely attended, we are today continuing in modern form a procedure that was laid down in the Bill of Rights. It was enacted that the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, was against the law.
Until 1879, discipline was maintained by the passing of the Mutiny Act. Then, for a couple of years, there was the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, and then, in 1881, we had the Army Act, with the procedure by which the Act itself was permanent. But after the passing by the House of the Resolution on Vote A about the numbers which it would be lawful to recruit in the course of the year, the Army (Annual) Act was passed. This procedure obviously was grossly defective. With the passing of time it became necessary to introduce Amendments, and between the passing of the 1881 Act and the time it was amended the procedure was altered. There were no fewer than 920 Amendments. When, in 1952, some of us who were aware of the position urged that something should be done about it, the Act was hopelessly out of date.
The reason why it is important that we should look at this procedure is because during the years I have been in the House of Commons—and I made my maiden speech in a defence debate—there has been cut and thrust about defence policy across both sides of the


House. One side has not always been right and the other side has not always been wrong, but we have learnt something from each other. Without being too boastful or too humble—mealymouthed is almost as bad as being the other—I claim to have been right most times.
In the controversies about the Army, about the three-year engagement, and about the introduction of the differential, there was one thing of which I was convinced; and I apologise to the House for saying it yet again. These problems, however, are of such a character and complexity, they arouse so little attention among hon. Members and the public in peacetime cares so little about them, that it was necessary to proceed on the basis, if one could, of getting the maximum amount of agreement in an endeavour to find a solution.
In 1952, we had an out-of-date Act. The Conservative Government did not have a very large majority. Some of us put down large numbers of Amendments, such a large number that we could have brought down the Government—there was no doubt about it—because they had to pass the Army Act by 30th April. I well remember discussions with the then Mr. Crookshank, who was Leader of the House, who said "What terms do you want?" The terms we wanted were an up-to-date Army Act.
Discussions took place behind the Chair. We settled for a Select Committee. It was then done behind closed doors for two years, meeting often in the Recess, with both sides pooling their experience. The present Army Act was produced and with it the present procedure under which we continued and by which we have an affirmative Order of both Houses for four years and then we have a Select Committee.
From the experience which I have gained during the years I have been a Member of the House, I believe that what was true then is valid today. It does not matter very much whether one is discussing terms or whether one is discussing weapons. The other chap may be mistaken or he may be stupid, but it does not necessarily follow that he is wicked or unpatriotic because he does not agree with one. We had an

example of this kind of benighted policy the other night. I refer to the "smart Alec" tactics of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), who has not graced many of our defence debates—I am sure that we are the losers for that—but tried to introduce a note of acute party controversy into a subject which is a matter for argument. It is not my intention to transgress the rules of order, but what we were discussing was not the solution of the weapon itself. That was neither here nor there. The first point to decide was whether we needed a replacement of the weapon in question, and one can argue that, not on the basis of opinion or on the basis that, because the other chap does not agree with us, he is a traitor to his country, but on the basis of an objective examination of the facts. That was what we had in that Select Committee.
I should be out of order if I referred to debates going on upstairs, where the maximum amount of good will is being shown. Although there are differences, there is an understanding of what it is all about. However much time or money we spend, we must start from the premise that the country needs defence. If in accepting that we go on to say that we agree about far more than we disagree about, there is a chance of getting it right.
On the other hand, whether the subject be the question of who is right about recruiting, or whether we should have Blue Water or the TSR2 or any other weapon, if we try by "smart Alec" tactics to put this person or that person in the wrong for party reasons which do not stand up to a moment's examination, there is no chance of pulling it off. In the long run, the only thing bound to suffer is the very object to which we are paying lip-service when we undertake that action.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster, in an earlier part of his life, shared an experience similar to my own. I know that he is not mealy-mouthed or ashamed about it. However, if he remains loyal to the traditions which he was taught, then he will have learned something, and that is to put the regiment first. If he does that, he will never again repeat the tactics which forced me to outwit him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member be good enough to address himself to the Question of whether we should continue the Army Act for another twelve months?

Mr. Wigg: I am doing that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster had his way, there would be no Army or Air Force to continue.

Sir G. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Mr. Wigg: I am entirely in order, I think, in seizing this opportunity to demonstrate—and I will leave the subject very shortly—

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigg: I understand why the hon. Member says "Hear, hear", He has run away from debating this matter in Dudley and Kidderminster. He has dodged debating it on television, and now he says "Hear, hear"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty to try to remind the House of the rules of order. The hon. Member must conform to the rules of order. The Question before us is whether we should continue the Army Act or not.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) continues to make mendacious statements about my personal character, will I be allowed to make a personal statement in reply to them and remain within the rules of order?

Mr. Speaker: It was in order to stop this sort of thing that I was seeking to bring the House back to the Question which arises.

Sir G. Nabarro: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wigg: I was unaware that I had made any statement of a mendacious sort about the hon. Member's personal character. I do not care tuppence about his personal character. If I made such a statement I withdraw it here and now. What I said was that he had got cold feet. But we know that. That is not an attack on his character.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Dudley would direct himself to the Question which arises under this Order.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the repetition of this mendacious statement, could the hon. Member for Dudley be requested to withdraw it, or, alternatively, may I reply to it? Are hon. Members opposite allowed to indulge in mendacity to an unlimited extent?

Mr. Paget: On a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: No; I am on a point of order. May I have an answer to my point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about the totality of what the hon. Member for Dudley has said. In my view, no kind of personal attack on any other hon. Member should, or does, arise on the Question before us, which is whether or no we continue the Army Act for another twelve months. I wish that the House would discuss that.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. For future reference, is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of making a mendacious statement?

Mr. Speaker: The word "mendacious" was put both ways round, but I am not sure to what it was applied in the first instance. I do not wish to rule hypothetically about anything. I want the House to get on with the debate.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. I used the word "mendacious" in regard to an allegation that my feet were cold. In fact, they are jolly warm, and I am in very good order.

Mr. Wigg: I am acknowledging the fact that the hon. Member's feet have been cold and that his head is big. I should have loved the opportunity of warming up one and reducing the size of the other in both Dudley and Kidderminster, but he has funked it. I am satisfied for the moment No doubt some other opportunity will occur—perhaps even tonight—when we will be able to refer in more detail to the real issues. However, obviously the hon. Member for Kidderminster remains unconverted. Coming back to the Order, whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks about me or anything else, I plead with him to pay attention to the larger issues. Obviously, be is entitled to hold what views he likes; that is his business.


However, would heconsider the wider issue of endeavouring to examine defence as a whole from a non-party angle?
I was very interested to see the rapid conversion of the Prime Minister to this point of view. On the first day that he spoke in the House he wanted to throw defence into the cockpit of party politics, but last week, speaking at a Parliamentary Press Gallery luncheon, he said, "Keep politics out of defence and defence out of politics". He is absolutely right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Member would bear in mind the Question that arises. I think that it would assist the House.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is the Order continuing the Act. Unless we can discuss the merits of that Order—its history, how it came into being and, indeed, what the situation would be if we rejected it—it makes a nonsense of this debate. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the Prime Minister had their way, a House might be elected which would reject this Order. Therefore, while it may not be agreeable to discuss it in these terms, surely we must be able to discuss the Order itself, and this is what I set out to do. I thought that I was scrupulously careful to keep within the rules of order. I have sat through the whole of this debate. In view of some of the things which I have heard during the course of it, although you may not agree, Mr. Speaker, I regard myself as a paragon of virtue in my efforts to keep in order. However, I will not trespass on your kindness, Sir.
I turn to the question of recruiting, which I am sure, you would agree, Mr. Speaker, is in order. I wish to consider this matter in some detail. Before anybody congratulates anyone on attaining the targets, we should stop to ask what the targets were. Figures of 165,000 and 180,000 have been mentioned. Nobody has ever mentioned the real target of 200,000 the figure set by the Hull Committee. The figure of 165,000 was introduced for party political reasons. Lord Head, on 28th July, 1958, refused to accept these figures, and that is why he did not take office. The target was

said to be 165,000. But it was a political target. The absolute minimum, allowing for the replacement of non-effectives, was 169,000. Subsequently, in 1959, as soon as recruiting showed some signs of improvement, a new figure was introduced. It was not 165,000, nor 180,000. Nobody mentioned 180,000. Even after the most careful examination, hon. Members will not find any Minister saying that the target was 180,000. It was 182,000.
Approaching the problem in another way, it was not even 182,000, because the first figure given in the 1957 White Paper was 375,000 overall.
In the next year when it was broken down, it did not add up to 375,000, but to 388,000. In 1959, when the then Secretary of State said that he needed another 15,000, the total we had was 403,000 which gives a different picture.
The Minister knows perfectly well that the problem about the Army is the problem of balance. It is not only a question of being able to recruit for this arm or that. It is a question of having a balanced force. Two years ago during the debate on the Queen's Speech the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) made a devastating confession which has never been retracted. He admitted freely that the Rhine Army was out of balance. It does not matter which way we look today at the Rhine Army or the Strategic Reserve or the forces in Brunei. The charge that it is out of balance is as true today as it was then. One of the things which I wish to ask is what happened to the 15,000, the allocation of the 15,000, from 1959 onwards? At that time the Secretary of State for War said that he would allocate the 15,000 increase with 11,000 of it going to the teeth arms. I have done a little research and I have given the figures before of how this increase was to be distributed. I should like the Minister, not necessarily to confirm them in detail, but say where the short-fall lies. This will illustrate whether or not there is a true balance.
There were 8,440 allocated to the infantry; the Royal Artillery was to have 750; the First Echelon 900; the Second Echelon 1,600 and the Administrative Wing 2,900. There were 1,000 to go into training and 1,400 were going into a planning margin. That added


up to just over 15,000. We know—the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well—that a considerable number of infantry battalions are below establishment. He does not tell us what is the establishment. We know, because the Secretary of State in 1959 told us, that the figure of 635 was much too low and we needed an establishment of about 800–774 to be precise—and so a considerable number of these battalions are below strength.
If we know that they are short, what is the shortage as a whole in the Service? My guess is that there is still a shortage of about 10,000 spread across the board. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman gave figures to show that, with 19,200 officers, he had 171,000 to 172,000, which is between 8,000 and 9,000 short. The right hon. Gentleman may get the 8,000 or 9,000, but that is at least 2,000 less than the original figure, which was 182,000.
If we relate it to the figure of 200,000 we are 30,000 short, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that even in the last year the commitments have increased. The hypothesis in 1957 was that the commitments were going to decline. But the opposite has happened. The Minister knows only too well that the situation in Brunei may become a running sore. We talk about our influence in relation to our allies. But our inability to meet the conventional bill is a grave cause of lack of influence. The Minister knows as well as I do that the phrase which is used about us is that we use the "double count". We count the troops in the Strategic Reserve earmarked for Germany, and the same troops earmarked for some other theatre are then counted again. That is a situation which cannot be put right quickly.
I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and it is perfectly true that we are heading for a pay increase. The year of a pay increase, is always a good recruiting year, but increased pay has a short-term effect. When I looked at the recruiting figures for 1963, this is what I found, and I pay tribute to the assistance of the Research Department of the House the able members of which are always ready to do one's sums. There was a 23 per cent. drop in January last over January

of 1962. I make my comparisons between the months and the corresponding months of the previous year because the trend goes on throughout the year. There was a 34 per cent. drop in February; a 41 per cent. drop in March; a 51 per cent. drop in April; a 51 per cent. drop in May; a 53 per cent, drop in June; a 50 per cent. drop in July; a 41 per cent. drop in August; a 36 per cent. drop in September—the best recruiting month of the year—and a 36 per cent. again in October.
This is not very encouraging picture, because one has to face the fact that certainly November and December will be very poor months. They are the worst months of the year. So the possibility of closing the gap during the life of the present Government is not very great. I think that the Government are batting out time and my right hon. and hon. Friends will have the bill presented to them. Then we shall see. I shall wait with great interest to see whether there is any interest shown in the House; whether there is any interest shown in the Press or whether some of the defence correspondents, who are keeping quiet now, will suddenly start screaming about putting this right and putting that right. I was with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) during the period of Korea. I know only too well what we can expect from people like the hon. Member for Kidderminster. We shall then see what happens.
This afternoon I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about rejections. This is not a new question. We had a debate a year ago, which was a memorable debate for me, because I got neatly trussed up. I was "mug" enough to accept a change of procedure in good faith, and I spoke first on the Adjournment and both Front Bench speakers spoke after me. But tomorrow is also a day. And the day after that is another day. And we wait—yes, we wait—[Interruption]—if the hon. Member for Kidderminster makes a noise like that, I shall have to make another comment—one cannot expect anything from a pig but a grunt. Let us deal now with the rejection rate—

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigg: Before the war, the rejection rate was 70 per cent. Last year it


was as low as 40 per cent. In that debate last year the Secretary of State boasted that in 1961 the rejection rate was 60 per cent. In fact he admitted that he was rejecting 10 per cent. fewer than before the war. He said that at one stage it was as low as 60 per cent. But hon. Members can watch this. They do not need to be told what is happening by the Secretary of State for War. Hon. Members should watch the wastage rates in the more unpopular arms of the Service—not in the Guards or the Royal Armoured Corps, who will keep their establishment, but the more unpopular arms.
In the Pioneer Corps it was, at one stage, as high as 50 per cent., and the waste of public money involved in that and the lowering of the prestige of the Army is a consequence of deliberately lowering the wastage rates. And, of course, it was that. The Secretary of State did not send out a circular saying "Bring in the halt, the lame and the blind". He put tremendous pressure on the recruiting machine which, in the event, had exactly the same effect. When this goes on, and if it goes on long enough, it produces a situation at the second stage which militates against satisfactory recruiting because it produces bad regiments. If there are bad regiments, people are not happy and they either desert or there is a high incidence of crime. In other words, so far as the Army is concerned, Gresham's law applies, the bad will drive out the good. Equally—this is in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig)—a good regiment is a regiment with a high standard of discipline where people know exactly where they are. In such a regiment the freedom to which he referred is not lacking. Throughout such a regiment one knows exactly where one is, and no one tries anything on because he knows what will happen. I have no doubt that the higher the standard of discipline is, the greater is the freedom. However, this is, again, an argument on another point, and I do not intend to digress. I want to remain on the problem of finding a solution.
The hon. Gentleman who has just become the Under-Secretary of State for War held a Press conference last week and detected an improvement in the

recruiting figures and was encouraged by the pay rise which is to take place next year. But there is something that he overlooked in relation to the recruiting problem. This takes a great deal of study and understanding, and even when one has tried to understand it, one is not sure whether one has succeeded. What happens is that in such circumstances one borrows from the future. The pay rise will come along next April and a great many men who have been discussing the subject with their mothers, fathers or girl friends will decide to join the Army, whereas if the pay rise had not come in April they might have joined in August or October.
This is shown by the figures. The situation is much the same with regard to unemployment. There is no direct correlation. Anybody who claims that unemployment as such is a recruiting sergeant will be in great difficulty in proving it. If there is unemployment on the Clyde a man of enterprise may leave to seek work in Newcastle. He may then go on to York or perhaps to London, and then he may get fed up and join the Army in Bournemouth. There is no direct correlation between the place in which a man joins the Army and the recruiting in that place.
The facts of the situation—the shortages in the infantry and the other arms of the Service—affect all of us. They affect my hon. Friends, because before long they will be faced with the responsibility of finding a solution. When my hon. Friends become the Government, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will then be on this side of the House, will also have a direct interest in solving the problem, for another reason, because there is no short-term solution. No translation from this side of the House to the other side will produce a solution overnight. It is a long-term problem—one of five or ten years.
When we come to weapons, that is even more true. This is what makes the comments of the hon. Member for Kidderminster so ludicrous. These things take a very long time to evolve. The Government themselves used the argument about it taking ten years to produce an answer. Here we are working on a five-year cycle. These Orders go on for four years, and then we have a Select Committee. Thus, this


represents the life of a Parliament. In the case of weapons, because of their very nature, one has to think in terms of a decade.
This seems to point irresistibly to the conclusion that attempts to find solutions on the basis of scoring party points are so absurd that they should be for children only and we ought to try to give up that sort of thing here. We ought to try to make use of the resources of the House. I can think of nothing better than the Select Committee procedure. I have had on the Order Paper a Motion calling for a Committee on defence expenditure. I want to put teeth into the Estimates Committee procedure. I favour the use of this sort of device by Government and Opposition alike. It would be out of order to pursue this matter very far, but I should like the Opposition to be brought into consultation on defence matters up to the very highest level of policy where the apex of the pyramid goes up into foreign policy. I should like to see the Opposition brought into consultation as they were in the days of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
Equally, in terms of the procedure of this House, I should like the Select Committee procedure to be adopted each year. It is far better to have a Select Committee looking at the Army Act every year than to have this continuous Order procedure which attracts only a handful of hon. Members. One thing that we can be sure about is that if we are in Committee upstairs behind closed doors, party considerations go out of the window, and until that happens we shall not get the objective approach which is absolutely vital to the finding of a solution. How can we argue across the Floor of the House with hon. Members drifting in and out and not being terribly interested—I do not blame them—in the terms of service?
We talk about "men" when we ought to be talking about "man years". The return that we get every month is nonsense and meaningless when one man is worth three years, another six years, and another nine years. Also, the return itself covers not only external recruiting but also internal recruiting. These are matters not necessarily for specialists but for those who are prepared to give up their time and take an interest in the subject. It is necessary to get to

grips with toe facts in order to achieve objectivity.
This is a cri-de-coeur which I have uttered before. I offer it in all sincerity for exactly the same reasons as before. I am convinced that unless we can get this approach into our defence affairs, disaster will sooner or later overtake us.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) sent me a registered letter last Thursday saying that he proposed to refer to me in today's debate. I received the letter this morning with gratitude for his courtesy.

Mr. Wigg: That is more notice than the hon. Gentleman gave my hon. Friend.

Sir G. Nabarro: Since I received the letter at nine o'clock this morning I have been quaking in fear about what the hon. Gentleman might be saying about me in the debate. In fact, all that the hon. Gentleman has said about me has been out of order, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot refer to it. I do not propose to incur your wrath, Sir, and thus prejudice my boundless opportunities on future occasions of addressing the House. I propose to remain strictly within the rules of order and to talk about the contents of the Order. I will deal with the hon. Member for Dudley in this House on defence matters on future occasions.

Mr. Wigg: In Kidderminster?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, not in Kidderminster.

Mr. Wigg: I would take the hon. Gentleman on there.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, not there, because the proper place to debate defence is in the House of Commons.

Mr. Wigg: In Dudley, then?

Sir G. Nabarro: If the television authorities would like to invite the hon. Gentleman and myself to appear on the screen or a mutually convenient occasion—I repeat, mutually—then—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman funks it. He dodged it last time. He first said "Yes" and then he said No".

Sir G. Nabarro: —I would accept with alacrity. I have, of course, appeared on television far more than the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The number of times on which the hon. Gentleman has appeared on television will not be affected by the acceptance or rejection of this Order, which continues neither himself nor the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Do let us get to the business of the debate.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry to have incurred your wrath, Mr. Speaker. I was trying very hard not to. The hon. Member for Dudley said that I was a funk. This is the first time in my life that I have ever been called a funk, or told that I have cold feet—both of which I deny.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member has a big head.

Sir G. Nabarro: My hat is size 7¼, and that is a very big head—

Mr. Wigg: It is growing.

Sir G. Nabarro: —but there is a lot inside it.
If I may now refer to the Order, I rise to put to my right hon. Friend one point which I believe to be of substance. We have heard hon. Members opposite—I have sat through the debate since half past three—complaining about the scale and extent of recruitment, the failure to reach target figures, and associated matters. What we have not heard from the Opposition is what their policy is, whether it favours the reintroduction of conscription or whether it supports the policy of the present Government in having abandoned conscription.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) addressed the House for half an hour, skating carefully round this fundamental fact and failed to say either "Yes" or "No"—for conscription or against it. The reason is, of course, as we all know, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is against conscription whilst the hon. Member for Dudley is for it. The party is split in two.

Mr. Paget: I am very surprised to hear the hon. Member. I do not think that he could have heard what I said. I said emphatically that I was against it and always have been, and that the vast

majority of the Labour Party was against it.

Sir G. Nabarro: "Vast majority"—now we are getting down to brass tacks. But the hon. Member for Dudley did not declare himself as being for conscription.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member has not made the slightest attempt to verify the facts. I repeat what I said on 21st May last—that if the Secretary of State introduces in this Parliament a Bill for selective service I will vote for it.

Sir G. Nabarro: This simply underlines the fact that the Socialist Party is split from top to bottom on the issue of conscription. A percentage of the party believes in it and a percentage opposes it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not want to give way again.
I declare myself as a determined supporter of the Government on this. I am pleased that conscription was abandoned. I believe in a fully volunteer, whole-time, professional Regular recruitment for the Army. I believe that to be the preferable system.

Mr. Wigg: Suppose we cannot get them?

Sir G. Nabarro: At present, the deficit is only very marginal. I discount the hon. Member's allegation that the target is 200,000 for the Regular Army. It has been firmly fixed in my mind at 165,000.

Mr. Wigg: Wrong.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Secretary of State set the target at 165,000 today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was not wrong. The deficit is about 5 per cent., and 5 per cent. in a manpower deficit is very marginal. I do not believe that, having regard to conditions of employment and the general prosperity in civil life, 5 per cent. is an insurmountable deficit during the course of the next few months.
The second point I want to raise is the matter of the Gurkhas, referred to also by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Many contributors to the debate have talked about the recruitment of Commonwealth


forces, either for combatant or non-combatant duties. We have been taken as far a field as Fiji, Seychelles, the West Indies, West Africa and other parts of the Commonwealth. But it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is exactly right in focusing attention on the Gurkhas. There are 15,000 Gurkhas.

Mr. Wigg: Wrong.

Sir G. Nabarro: There are 15,000 Gurkhas.

Mr. Wigg: Wrong. Wrong.

Sir G. Nabarro: Perhaps the Minister will intervene and confirm my figure.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): It is not far short.

Sir G. Nabarro: How far short?

Mr. Kirk: The figure is 14,600.

Sir G. Nabarro: Then it is only 400 short of 15,000. That is a tiny margin and the hon. Member for Dudley, rudely shouting "Wrong, wrong" at me, has again proved his own abysmal ignorance of combatant soldiers.
The Gurkha strength—I stand corrected by my hon. Friend—is 14,600 men, of which part are in the Strategic Reserve in this country and part are serving overseas. Last March it was announced that the Gurkhas would be reduced to 10,000 and I believe that today, in giving the figure of 152,000 other ranks, my right hon. Friend excluded the 14,600 Gurkha troops.
Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is postponing the reduction of the strength of the Gurkhas from 14,600 to 10,000 men, I ask him whether he should not now reconsider this policy and decide finally that there should not be a postponement, but rather that the establishment of the Gurkhas should be continued at a minimum of 15,000 men.
I personally believe that, as there are thousands upon thousands of Nepalese—to whom we refer as Gurkhas—who are anxious, willing and ready to join the British Army and serve under British officers, we should plan to increase the strength of the Gurkhas from the present figure of 14,600 to a figure of approximately 20,000.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. Gentleman go on to say that, if the Gurkhas

served in Hong Kong, they should be paid for by the Hong Kong Government in view of the fact that Income Tax there is 2s. 6d. in the £?

Sir G. Nabarro: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that I cannot argue Income Tax in this debate. Hon. Members will be asking me to argue Purchase Tax next.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member does not know about that, either.

Sir G. Nabarro: I do know something about it.

Mr. Wigg: Then it is more than he knows about this subject.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is a matter of opinion. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that he spent a long time pleading that we should try to raise defence matters above party. He even alluded to his own origin as a private in the Hampshire Regiment as being the same origin as mine as a rifleman in the Green Jackets. I do not mind these references to our humble origin, but I dislike his humbug and hypocrisy in saying that defence should be lifted out of party controversy and then shouting "Wrong, wrong" at me every ten seconds. So far, I have not been wrong on my count. I am not going to argue Income Tax today.
The point at issue is the serious one that, rather than reduce the strength of the Gurkhas from 14,600 to 10,000, we should increase the strength to 20,000 as part of the British Army, for two main reasons. First, it would make a contribution to overcoming the marginal manpower deficit from which we are suffering, and, secondly, it would be additional insurance against continuing or even expanding trouble in the Far East us a result of the creation of Malaysia and the activities of President Sukarno.

Mr. E. Shinwell: As I took some part in the opposition to the proposed reduction of the Gurkha Regiment, some time ago, along with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, may I ask whether, to clarify this matter, the Secretary of State will say whether it is practicable to increase the Gurkha element in the British Army from 14,600 to 20,000?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for supporting me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not in Committee. There is some difficulty if, while an hon. Member is speaking, another hon. Member intervenes in his speech to ask a question of someone else. That is difficult procedurally.

Sir G. Nabarro: May I assume then, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman was addressing his question to me? I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman. There is, of course, the constitutional difficulty that, when the British left India in 1947, it was agreed that Gurkha recruitment should be restricted to 10,000 men. Unofficially, by arrangement between the Indian and British Governments, that figure has stood at practically 15,000 for several years past.

Mr. Wigg: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: I wish that the hon. Member would not keep saying "No". The figure has stood at about 15,000 for many years past and from the information I have it is apparent that there are almost unlimited volunteers from among Gurkhas to increase their strength and that they are prepared to come and serve in the British Army. I hope that my hon. Friend, in replying to the debate, will deal with the question of the Gurkhas for the two important reasons that I have attached to my question.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. Alan Thompson: In a few brief remarks, I should like to address myself to some of the long-term problems, particularly recruitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said were common to both sides of the House. This is a problem which this side will face equally when it comes into power.
I would at this point comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who, with his characteristic eloquence and wit, told us that he saw no real reason for the existence of an Army in a rational world. My only objection would be that we do not live in a rational world, and that, although we are working towards it through such bodies

as the United Nations, there will still be a continuing need for British defence forces. Even when we make the United Nations a more effective instrument—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, with his broad international interests, supports the United Nations—the British contribution will still depend on the existence of an effective Army.
Most hon. Members have stressed the importance of the Commonwealth contribution to the Army. It not only helps us in our manpower problems—speaking for the long-term; I understand the short-term difficulties in this—but, as well as being specifically concerned with the Army, it strengthens our idea of Commonwealth and breaks down racial barriers. I served in the infantry during the war, alongside a number of coloured soldiers whose popularity in the regiment, and effectiveness and sense of humour changed the attitude of everybody who worked with and served beside them. I think that anyone who has served beside such troops could never be the victim of the silly racial prejudice which besets a lot of people in this country. The widening of our Army to include this Commonwealth idea is very useful.
As I said in my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), if we could perhaps put out publicity for Commonwealth immigrants they might provide a source of recruitment when they arrived in this country if the possibilities and facilities of Army service were put before them. I gather that there are no legal difficulties in the way of accepting them. The possibility of Commonwealth immigrants serving in responsible jobs in the defence of our country might go a long way towards answering the exponents of racial prejudice.
It has been rightly said that the important thing today for recruitment is, in the short term, the level of pay. Long term, we face other problems. The hon. Member for Clapham said that the Army was an unpleasant job and would always face difficulties of recruitment. I am not sure that it is an unpleasant job for everybody. People are interested in different things and are good at different things. A farmer would find the life of a lawyer extremely unpleasant,


tedious beyond measure, and would never join a recruiting drive for lawyers. A nurse might view with apprehension the job of a waitress. A waitress might think that the job of a nurse, emptying bedpans and taking blood from people, utter anathema. There are all kinds of people to whom we can appeal for different kinds of jobs and always there is a source of people who are interested in the Army. What is needed is more market research into the consumer market. We need more sociological investigation into the kind of people who like Army life, and should direct our publicity towards those people.
I do not think that there is anything in the nature of the Army itself which is unpleasant, but that there are extraneous features which are unpleasant. Some of the central activities of Army life, opportunities for travel and the increasing emphasis on craftsmanship and technological factors, make it in many ways a desirable job. There are extraneous factors which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig)—referred to arbitrary and irrelevant discipline—which sometimes make it unpleasant, but I would say, with all respect to my hon. Friend, who, I thought, spoke sincerely on the matter, that the Army has changed a little since he and I were in it—not all that long ago.
In dealing with the Army as a Member, I find that in many ways it is more humane than it used to be and that personal grievances are dealt with better than when I was in the Army. It was regarded in my day as highly improper to write to one's Member of Parliament, but now I think that there is a general feeling that grievances are investigated.
The investigations that I have made of personnel and officer selection show them to be much better than they used to be. We might improve it still further with more boys from grammar schools and a wider dispersion of the regions of the country supplying officer material, but I think that our selection methods are much better than they were and are scientifically based. I would put in a plea in our modern obsession with selection—getting people young and promoting them to be officers, executives or senior civil servants—not to forget the ranker, the man who, perhaps by accident of birth, or

money, has not had the education which would initially qualify him, but who, perhaps, in the ranks, later becomes suitable material. For instance, there are late developers among university students. Before a selection committee bays of 18 or 19 are often a little tongue-tied and inadequate, but three or four years later they are sometimes quite different and have brought in a range of experience that changes them. Similarly, the Army should never close or seem to close the door for commissions to people who by accident, have missed the initial selection processes which take the boys young.
Finally, I think that we should regard the Army as being complementary to civilian life. When a man goes into the Army he does not, or should not, sever his connections with civilian life. I should like to see much more flexibility. I think that this is growing. Many civilian professions are enriched by having ex-soldiers. I know of a most distinguished judge, recently appointed, who did not study law until he left the Army at the age of 40. Then he sat down to his law books, and now, quite a number of years later, he is a judge, and I think that he will be a better judge for the kind of experience of men and life that he gained in the Army.
The same may be said of teachers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that we must be careful not to compete for teachers and officers from the same kind of people, but, again, I would say that often the best kind of teachers are those who had some kind of Service experience. That has been my experience. In view of the Robbins Report and much greater emphasis on higher education, the Army will have to "get in on the act" very quickly by looking at, and giving close study to, the way in which it capitalises on this increased output of higher educational manpower.
Finally, we must still greatly concern ourselves with welfare, particularly in the more outlying regions of the world. We sometimes concentrate too much on welfare at home or near home bases when, as we all know, many young men, often in their late teens, are in Borneo fighting the most difficult war in the most difficult circumstances in the jungle, not only in a difficult environment, but


hedged around with diplomatic objectives and other reasons which are a little complicated, the difficulties of attacks across frontiers, and so on, and all the other diplomatic difficulties which so often seem to hedge round the Service man and limit his efficiency, but which are necessary in the world of today. All these factors add to the burden of our soldiers in Borneo.
As we sit down to our Christmas dinners or New Year's celebrations, these young men will still be there, still in the most difficult circumstances. In the last war, the jungle forces were always thought to have the worst theatres of war. The 14th Army was called the "Forgotten Army". I trust that our forces in Borneo will not become another "Forgotten Army" and that the right hon. Gentleman will pay close attention to the provision of welfare services for these men.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: It was not my intention to take part in the debate, but I have listened to practically the whole of it, so perhaps someone who has shared in the administration of the Army on two occasions, once in the 1930s and once for some years between 1945 and 1951, may offer a few observations.
I begin by expressing my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. There will always be some difficulty about a target, because the military personnel who are responsible for running the Army have varying views of the appropriate target to enable the country to fulfil her commitments. I recall that not long ago the Hull Committee decided that no fewer than 200,000 men were required if we were to fulfil our commitments. Since then, targets have been frequently bandied about from one side to the other, and we are still debating what that appropriate target should be.
It will have been noted that the right hon. Gentleman referred to our increasing commitments. How right he was! We have a situation developing in the Far East which may require the services of many troops and other increments from our forces during the course of the next few months or years. In those circumstances, we ought correctly

to determine how many troops are required—I am discussing land forces—so that these increasing commitments can be met. That is not asking too much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was not asking for an immediate solution, for there is no immediate solution. He wants a Select Committee. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, after our protracted debates on this matter, that it is impossible to come to an appropriate determination of what forces we require without a meticulous examination, and such an examination is impossible in the House.
In spite of all the appeals which are made from time to time to elevate this important matter of defence above partisanship, the "old Adam" always emerges. That is natural in a House of this kind. It is democracy, for what it may be worth I do not despise democracy but, like other hon. Members, I recognise its inevitabilities and its implications. If we had a Select Committee, and hon. Members from both sides of the House were able to argue out these matters upstairs, with all the statistics available and with ail the facts submitted and with no bluff and brag and pretending about the strength of our forces vis-à-vis our commitments—I hope that I shall be excused for using those terms—we could get down to brass tacks and see exactly where we were.
We have never done that yet. I remember an incident when I was Secretary of State and when targets for our Territorial forces were presented to me. In those days, we had vast numbers of active troops at our disposal and the question of a target for them did not arise. However, we were then contemplating an increase in our Territorial forces. A target of 150,000 Territorials was presented to me as being appropriate and capable of achievement. However, not long afterwards it was reduced—not by me, but by those who understood the nature of the problem—to 100,000, subsequently to 80,000 and eventually to 60,000. We became more practical as we examined the facts, and I have not the least doubt that this sort of thing still happens at the War Office.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not regard it as strong language if


I beg him not to pretend any longer. I am not in the least blaming him, but there is no use indulging in pretence about the strength of our forces vis-à-vis our commitments. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), in an excellent and sincere speech—although I did not agree with every word of it—refer to the need for defence, in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who regards defence as irrelevant. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West that a country like ours cannot discard defence, but our potential defence is weak.
Over and over again, in defence debates, I have warned the House about the weakness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of the defections of some of its members in the provision of adequate forces. This is not an appropriate occasion to say more about that, but there is no use pretending that we are strong when we are not, for we might be caught out and it might mean disaster for us.
It is not a matter of whether the figure is 152,000, 165,000, 180,000 or 182,000, or, the verdict of the Hull Committee, 200,000. It is what is necessary having regard to likely circumstances which would require all the strength which we could command. With my experience of the War Office, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to request his military advisers—I hope that they will forgive me for this; I have a great regard for them—to tell the truth. I remember that on one occasion, when I was Minister of Defence, we were considering expenditure and I asked the Chiefs of Staff what money would be required, taking calculated risks into account. Their response was that we had to consider manpower.
I remarked that it had nothing to do with them, that it was my responsibility, but they asked, "What about the finance? Can the nation afford it?" "That is not your responsibility" was my response, "That is mine". All that I asked was, "Taking the calculated risks into account, what do you regard as the adequate needs in defence for this country?" That, with respect, is the proper rôleof the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence. It is for those two right hon. Gentlemen to judge, after consultation with their

colleague, what the nation can afford, and what manpower is regarded as appropriate.
I repeat that the Secretary of State for War should ask his military advisers to state what is necessary. He should then come to the House and tell hon. Members what he regards as necessary. The matter should then go to a Select Committee for an examination of all the facts, without any question of partisanship. The Select Committee should consider this important matter of manpower and the possibility of trouble emerging in various theatres. After taking all the facts into account the Committee should decide what is required.
This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has been asking for for a long time. It is no use the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) asking hon. Members on this side to state their s solution for the problem. The fact is that neither side of the House is able to produce one. If the Under-secretary of State disagrees with me, I challenge him to tell me what is the solution.
I heard the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) talking about married quarters. Many years ago I had something to do with the provision of married quarters, by the provision of a loan of £40 million for their construction. The scheme was not successful because the number of married quarters provided was inadequate. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely was right. If the Government insist on sending large numbers of married men to the European theatre, they naturally want to take their wives and families with them. The present system will never be successful, for the simple reason that there will never be enough quarters available for married families. There will always be discontent, and this may deter recruitment.
What is to be done? I was not quite clear what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely suggested as a solution, but I suggest that there should be more frequent leave for men serving in Germany. This may cost a little more money, but it will cost much less than the provision of adequate married quarters which, in any event, can never be provided on an adequate scale. Now


that air transport is available, there is no reason why married men serving in the European theatre should not have leave for a weekend or for a few days every two or three months. It may thus be possible to some extent to make up for the lack of married quarters in the European theatre.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said about freedom. Of course, there must be discipline in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Indeed, in view of our responsibilities, I sometimes think that there ought to be more discipline among Members of the House. What I mean by discipline is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has been asking for—no bluff and pretence, but an examination of the facts. Relying on facts is in itself a measure of discipline.
I do not ask for complete freedom for the men in the Forces, of course not, but I ask that they should not be pushed around too much. They will accept discipline, but they will not accept being pushed around, or being buffeted from pillar to post. Nor will they accept being ordered about too much. It is no good the hon. Member for Kidderminster indulging in an almost inaudible protest at what I am saying. Although things may have changed during the last few years, my experience as a result of visiting various depots is that there is too much pushing around of, and yelling at, people who are subordinates.
I am not able to say whether discipline is a deterrent to recruiting. From time to time hon. Members talk about various deterrents to recruiting. They refer to such things as the lack of married quarters, the lack of freedom, the inadequacy of pay, and a variety of other things. I do not know whether these are deterrents, but what matters is that we should examine the facts closely, whatever they are, and however unpalatable they are, and we shall then be able to come to a conclusion on what should be done.
I repeat my request to the right hon. Gentleman not to pretend any longer. In view of our commitments, we are weaker than we should be. I do not want us to be weak. I say that because I do not want to see men plunged into

the maelstrom of battle unless they are strong and well-equipped to protect themselves. That is why I am speaking in this way. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. I sympathise with him. I have some experience of the situation, and I realise the difficulties. It is only when we begin to realise the difficulties and seek to escape from them by a meticulous examination of the facts, and come to a definite conclusion, that this House will begin to understand what the content of our defence really means.

7.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): The debate on this Order is limited by the nature of the Order itself to two particular subjects, that is, the discipline of the Army and the level of manpower or recruiting, and I shall, if I may, reply to the various points that have been made under those two headings.
Not a lot has been said about discipline in the course of the debate. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend singled out only one point which might give rise to comment, namely, the increase in the number of cases which have been overturned by the Courts Martial Appeal Court, and, as my right hon. Friend said, we are watching this to see whether this is indicative of a general trend.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, raised one case that had been overturned by the Courts Martial Appeal Court. It was the case of Major Cory, which hon. Members will remember gave rise to considerable concern earlier this year. The then Secretary of State for War undertook an exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances surrounding that court-martial.
The hon. Member for Aberavon, somewhat understandably I thought, asked when the results would be made known to the House. The inquiry has taken a very long time because of all the circumstances surrounding the case. For example, most of the inquiries we have had to make have had to take place in East Africa and an officer was sent out from the War Office to undertake them and subsequently another officer had to be brought home from East Africa to assist in the evaluation of the results. At the same time, a mass


of documents had to be considered by a large number of people. The transcript of the case alone occupied 1,400 pages and all this had to be examined with great care. I am not in a position this evening to give the final results of the inquiry, but I can give the hon. Member a firm undertaking that they will be made known before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.
Only one other major point was raised on discipline. That was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). He referred to the new regulations, to which my right hon. Friend also referred, regarding the right of company commanders to inflict financial penalties in the form, in some cases, of stoppage of pay. This scheme has been working only since 1st July and it is a little early to make any final reflections on it now, but so far as we have heard it seems to be working very well. It is all part of the attempt to give greater responsibility to officers lower down the ranks. We hope that it will continue to work well, but it is a scheme which, of course, must be watched fairly closely in its opening stages.
Most of the discussion in today's debate has been on the second of the two functions of the continuation Order, recruiting. It is to that that I should like to devote most of what I am going to say. I think most hon. Members will agree that this has been an extremely constructive debate. A large number of very interesting ideas have been put forward and all these will be considered. If I do not refer to all of them in detail in winding up this debate, that does not mean that they will not be looked at when we consider the whole question of recruiting figures.
I should perhaps first say something about the target to which a large number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) have referred. Although perhaps I should not say this, I share with the right hon. Member for Easington a great dislike of targets. It has been decided as a result of considerable examination of the situation that the present commitments of the British Army can be effectively discharged at a figure of 180,000 Regular troops.
We have at present a figure a little over 8,000 short of that, 171,000-odd. It is sometimes not realised how narrow the margin is. That is a difference of just on 5 per cent. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred, rather turning against the War Office, to the fact that recruiting in his constituency had gone up in one month from four to six. I do not think he quite realised what he was saying, because six people recruited in one constituency means about 3,600 all over the country in a month, and that is what we have to do in all constituencies in three years. If the problem could be solved in all constituencies in the same way as in his, it would not be such a great problem.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is one flaw in that argument. The figures were for the five constituencies of Ayrshire, not for only South Ayrshire.

Mr. Kirk: Even so, when we consider the national average of electorates compared with that in the hon. Member's constituency and the constituencies around it, which is so much smaller than in the country as a whole, if we could achieve the same results in every constituency we should not have an enormous amount to worry about.
Nevertheless, despite this narrow margin of 5 per cent., we are by no means complacent about the present situation. We are hopeful that we can reach the figure of 180,000, and although in the earlier part of the year recruiting was extremely bad, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are signs that the situation is slightly better now.
The hon. Member for Dudley, in my opinion rightly, pointed out that it was wrong to make a comparison between one month and the next. I hope he will also agree that it is sometimes wrong to make a comparison between a month in one year and the same month of the previous year—particularly when, as in this case, the previous year happened to be exceptional. It will be possibly better when we consider this matter at a later stage and when we have had the all-Regular Army running for some time to make a comparison between the average of the previous five years and the position then.
Even on the basis of this year, the reason why we are encouraged by the rate in the last few months is that, roughly, during the whole period from April to August when we had the really bad results the intake had been running at about 71 per cent. of the average in the last five years. That was a pretty poor return, but in September it rose to 84 per cent. and in October it kept up in the same way.
The September figure was in fact higher than at any time since January. The trend, therefore, was good, but it was not only good, it was against the trend of previous years. We are by no means complacent about the situation. That is all I said and I was reported in The Times. I did not say that it was going up, but that the decline in the figures appeared to have been stopped and this, I think, is the case.
The hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked about the rejection rate. This is a very important part of the argument. I was a little surprised at some of the figures which the hon. Member for Dudley gave because the figures I have are rather different from his. I shall nevertheless give them and hope that they will convince him that the rejection rate is not too bad at the moment. Out of every 100 recruits 50 per cent. were rejected in the years 1935 and 1936 and in 1937 the rate rose to 57 per cent. It was a pretty high rejection rate. In 1961 the rejection rate was 41 per cent. and in 1962, when recruiting was breaking all records, it rose to 43 per cent. At the end of last year we tightened up the standards and since January 1963 it has risen again and is now running at 47 per cent.
We have to bear in mind, as the hon. and learned Member said, that there has been a considerable improvement in general health, welfare and education standards since before the war. On the whole, if one bears that in mind, we are rejecting at about the same rate as pre war. I think our standards are at the moment adequate for the type of Regular Army we are trying to recruit.

Mr. Wigg: I follow the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I got my figures from the Annual Report, which were available before the war and had to work

them out myself. It may be that I took a later year, but the other figure which the hon. Gentleman has given is the same as mine. Surely we must not base ourselves on the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because that is quite fallacious. To argue that the standards have risen since before the war ignores the fact that the equipment which is being used is very much more complicated and that to be able to use that equipment we need to be able to draw on a much higher standard. Therefore, we cannot use the argument that because we are rejecting 40 per cent. now it is the same as before the war and it is therefore all right, for, although the standard is higher all the way round, the needs are also higher.

Mr. Kirk: I think the hon. Member has a point there in regard to education, but it does not apply in relation to health standards.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a higher standard of education than before the war and that a higher proportion of men are more fitted to do the more technical jobs?

Mr. Kirk: I think that is true and I am not placing great weight on this argument, but, as the figures were asked for, I have given them. I think they are very interesting and they show that we are keeping a close watch on the intake for the Army.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton also asked about the reserves and whether my right hon. Friend was satisfied with the present position. We are to have a debate later, I hope, about the reserves, when my right hon. Friend hopes to make a fairly general statement about the position. If there are further questions asked about it, I shall try to answer them at the end of that debate.
The hon. and learned Member also asked a number of questions about the shortage of specialists. One of the difficulties is that if we run into a shortage of particular specialists and make a great effort to recruit them to the full level, we find that we have possible shortages elsewhere. Our most serious shortages last year were in the Royal Signals, the R.A.M.C. and the Army Catering Corps.
In the last ten months all these have gained in strength, the Royal Signals by 800, the R.A.M.C. by 160 and the Army Catering Corps by 170—all very useful additions. At the same time, the infantry have lost in strength marginally by about 140 men. I think that we can say that we are not doing too badly for specialists, but we have still the infantry problem to look at, and it is one of our main concerns. It is perhaps that which we should consider when discussing measures to increase recruiting.
A large number of suggestions have been put forward in this interesting debate. The main suggestion running through a number of speeches—notably that of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster(Mr. Clive Bossom), Stroud and Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) was the possibility of more recruiting overseas. One difficulty is the expense involved, which is very considerable for what might be not a very great return. But there is no bar on any citizen of the Commonwealth joining the British Army, and quite a number do. For example, the hon. and learned Member on visiting B.A.O.R. may have seen Maltese working in the Royal Army Service Corps depôts there. Part of the difficulty with Malta is the Royal Malta Artillery, which tends to recruit in Malta, and therefore men tend to be put in a corps or unit there.
There are difficulties about overseas recruitment. It is possible that we shall be able to build it up a little, but I do not think that the gain would be more than marginal. The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs mentioned Commonwealth immigration, and we should look at this point to see whether recruiting from this source is as good as it should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster referred to the 17-year-old gap. This is the gap between the age at which boys leave school and the time when they can join the Army. We have been looking into this with some care, and we hope that eventually we shall find a way of overcoming this difficulty. He mentioned the importance of the Army teaching a trade. This has been one of the major difficulties in recruiting for

the infantry. If we recruit for a specialist unit we have the inducement of a trade, whereas in the infantry the inducement is not so great. We have started up two Army resettlement courses which are designed to lead into the Ministry of Labour vocational courses and which we hope will make it much easier for the infantry man, in particular, when leaving the Army to adjust to civilian life and to get a good job. We think that these courses will be helpful in this respect.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of unit recruiting. There are problems connected in this, in that so many units are overseas and it would be difficult to send home members of those units to recruit in this country. But the British Army of the Rhine has an arrangement whereby each unit sends home a recruiting team for a short time every year, and I believe that it is very successful in gaining recruits. There are opportunities through the Territorial Army, in particular, for this, where from time to time they can be taken to do some training with B.A.O.R.
Certain public funds are allotted through regimental channels for these recruiting purposes. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend suggested, we have the Army Youth Units, which to a certain extent will assist local recruiting efforts. Finally, we have been looking into the possibility of local Press advertising to help in recruiting and have carried out a pilot scheme in Lancashire. This has not yet proved to be an immense success in raising the number of recruits, although it is a little early to say whether it will be successful.
A large number of extremely interesting suggestions were made in the debate. One of the most interesting was made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) in what I thought was a most exciting speech. He referred to the difficulties arising out of the shortage of married quarters and offered an original way in which we might get over them. He has sent me a note saying that he regrets that he cannot be here for the end of the debate, but we will look at the scheme, which has one or two features in common with the "Save while you Serve Scheme," which we started eighteen months or two years ago and which so far has been extremely successful.
In conclus on—

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and I questioned the Front Bench penetratingly about additional recruitment of Gurkhas. If we cannot have a detailed answer to this question tonight, when may we have an answer, because it is a pressing matter and one about which we are very concerned?

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington has had to leave, but he asked me to draw attention to the fact that it is very important that the House should know whether a target of 20,000 Gurkhas is practicable and, if not, for what reason.

Mr. Kirk: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question tonight. We will look into this, but tonight I can go no further than the statement made by my right hon. Friend that the run-down of the Gurkhas to 10,000 has been postponed.

Sir G. Nabarro: We do not much like procrastination at this stage. I gather that my right hon. Friend says, "There is no procrastination". I press him in the matter. This is a reservoir of first-class fighting men, for reason which I gave in my speech. If he cannot give an answer tonight, will he undertake to be able to give an answer by the date of the Army Estimates in February? How long are these negotiations with Nepal and other interested parties likely to take?

Mr. John Hall: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Gurkha strength, whatever it may be, is outside the main target strength of the Army and in addition to it?

Mr. Kirk: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is correct. Those figures are not included in the target of 180,000.

Mr. Paget: There is no doubt that the reason for the proposal to reduce the strength of the Gurkhas was purely financial. Nepal would like us to have as many as we can.

Mr. Kirk: As far as I know, that is so, but I can give no undertaking other than that which I have given, that we will look at the matter. When it will

be possible to discuss it again in the House is something that I cannot say. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) an undertaking about that tonight.

Mr. Wigg: The answer was given to me in the first place, although the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) came in a little late. I asked the question which led to the statement that the reduction would be postponed. I am interested in the novel suggestion that we should recruit up to 20,000. In March we were told that the number was to be reduced from 14,000 to 10,000. Are the Government going up to 20,000 or are they simply postponing a reduction from 14,000 to 10,000?

Mr. Kirk: We are only now getting a postponement of the reduction from 14,000 to 10,000. We have not yet examined the practicability of raising it to 20,000.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend examine the practicability of doing this? I pressed him on that again. This is an urgent matter. We do not want a lot of procrastination. This is 9th December. Surely we can be told that we can have an answer to this problem by the debate on the Army Estimates in February.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Kidderminster has split the Conservative Party right in the middle—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. This is not a Committee stage. We cannot go on like this.

Mr. Kirk: I am a little worried that it may be 10th December before I can answer that point. Before we can give an assurance of that kind to my hon. Friend, we must examine whether there is a need for them. That is a point which we shall no doubt have to look into. We cannot tell my hon. Friend whether it is practical until we know whether we need them.
I have tried to answer the main points which were made in the course of the debate. I am sorry if I have done so a little hesitantly. It is the first time that I have been put in this position. I hope that I have filled in the gaps pointed out in the debate. I end by


assuring the House that this matter of recruiting, as I said at the beginning, is not causing any complacency in the War Office. We are determined to keep on towards the target figure of 180,000, and we believe that it is possible to obtain it.

Mr. Paget: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I congratulate him on a very fine first effort at the Dispatch Box?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

7.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I beg to move,
That the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
I think that the House is now fully familiar with what we are about. It has been explained by various hon. Members. I will remind the House that the main object of the Order is to ensure the discipline of the Royal Air Force, this being the main subject of the Act. Secondly, the Act is concerned with the recruitment of airmen and airwomen. These two topics are thus the main subject of our debate. Other opportunities will arise on the Estimates for more detailed discussion, especially as to officers and flying manpower.
I am glad to say that there is very little to report on the subject of discipline in the Royal Air Force during the past year. In this case, the House will agree that no news is good news. On the more serious aspects of discipline, there has been a slight drop in the number of courts martial from 2·7 per 1,000 officers and airmen to 2·3. It is clear that in the less important crimes—that is, offences dealt with by summary conviction—there has also been a falling off. This is satisfactory at a time when, nationally, serious crime is, alas, on the increase. I hope and believe that the Royal Air Force will continue to set the community a good example in this matter.
One point in which hon. Members will be interested is that since the beginning of 1962we have had a new punishment, introduced to bring us more into line with civilian courts—that is, the imposing of a fine under the Army and Air Force Act, known as "forfeiture of a sum from pay". I think that this has worked quite well and has been well administered. I would like to pay a tribute to the officers who have been in charge of administering this new form of discipline, which seems to have been satisfactory. About 7 per cent. of the cases dealt with by summary conviction were dealt with in this fashion.
The main topic in which most of those who remain are interested is the question of recruitment. I am happy to say that on the whole the Royal Air Force has had a fairly successful year. I would just like to point out one or two of the problems which face us. The dominating fact has been that this year, a process which will continue into 1964, the actual numbers of men we need for the Air Force has diminished. This has, therefore, been a period when we have not had to recruit a great many. As we said in the Statement on Defence, economies and other changes have reduced requirements. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this does not mean that we are unable to get the men we need, as I think I can show we have. The total number we have required in this year has been considerably lower than last year. As the House will recall, this flows, first, from the rundown of Thor and, secondly, form changes which we have been able to effect inside the Air Force which have led to the more efficient use of manpower. Therefore, the intake has been reduced.
The intake of youth entrants has been reduced by less than the intake of adult males. Nevertheless, I thought it right to keep the machinery of recruiting in being, and I have found that we have been able to recruit people of a very good and successful standard. This applies especially to the new scheme which we are introducing in January, 1964. We will then start recruiting boys in the new categories of technician apprentice, craft apprentice and administrative apprentice. Technician apprentices will provide a higher


standard of youth entrant than we have had before in the Royal Air Force. We are asking for recruits with four O levels and are offering pass-out from training in the rank of corporal to all who can attain this standard. Craft apprentices will provide the bulk of technical tradesmen, though they will be trained to a lower level than technician apprentices. Administrative apprentices will be trained for such trades as clerk and supplier.
Recent entries have been particularly well-subscribed, and I hope that the new forms of training will continue to attract entrants of this high calibre or higher than so far we have succeeded in drawing to us. We are doing our best to ensure that headmasters are fully informed of the new opportunities in the Service. Further, any help hon. Members can give in their constituencies to this admirable project would be most appreciated.
The Women's Royal Air Force continues to make an important contribution to the manning of the ground trades.
To sum up, ground trades recruitment has been this year at a subdued but satisfactory level. There have been no real problems in filling the vacancies available. Within the force there is some continuing lack of balance between trades, but this is inevitable in a time of changing needs. As the House will appreciate, change in the Air Force is necessarily a continuing process. Thus, there are marginal shortages in some trades, mainly on the administrative side—for example, nursing attendant and supplier, as well as in the unskilled assistant grades. There is a shortage of airwomen N.C.O.s, but this is due to the marriage rate and also to the pulchritude of those we have been fortunate enough to recruit. Fortunately, these difficulties of recruitment have no serious effect on operational efficiency, and overall both the current manning position and the future outlook of the Force are good.
If hon. Members have any points to raise, I shall do my best to answer them in the course of what I hope will be a not too prolonged debate.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I am sure that the House will

have learned with pleasure that the Royal Air Force has no serious manpower problems. It is well known that the Army has a much more difficult task in recruiting the necessary manpower than the Royal Air Force. The problems of the Air Force fall in a different category, possibly in the category of aircraft and weapons, which it would be out of order to debate on this Order.
Having regard to the small scope of the debate and the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to detain the House for very long. Although the right hon. Gentleman gave us a good general picture, I think that he might fill out one or two details. Before leaving the point about discipline, it would be our wish to congratulate those concerned in the Service on the very satisfactory reduction both in the figure of serious crimes dealt with by courts-martial and in the figure of offences falling within the scope of summary jurisdiction.
A matter of great concern to both the Secretary of State and senior officers in the Service a year or two ago was the enormous number of motor car accidents which were occurring, particularly among airmen serving in Germany. I appreciate that this is outside the scope of ordinary military discipline, but, apart from fatal accidents, I understand that a large number of the other accidents were due, first, to the character of the German roads, and, secondly, probably to the enthusiasm of some airmen who, for the first time, were in possession of their own cars—I dare say often not always the most roadworthy vehicles in the world. As I say, concern was felt about the number of accidents and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on this aspect.
The Secretary of State, dealing with the general problem of recruiting, said that the Service was in the satisfactory position of being a diminishing one and that, therefore, there was no difficulty in maintaining the general target, particularly if such a target was declining. He was careful not to tell us what the target was and I hope that he will give an indication of the new target. I understood that the existing figure is 145,000, but, considering the reorganisation consequent on the abandonment of the Thor missile and the other internal


arrangements he mentioned, it would be interesting to know what is the new target for the R.A.F. as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned title difficulty of obtaining nursing attendants. Can he say whether there are any other shortages in other special trades? At one time concern was expressed about the lack of R.A.F. police. I think that, in common with the other Services, there was difficulty in obtaining suitably qualified medical officers for hospitals and other medical appointments in the R.A.F.
It is probably in the technical grades that there exist the most serious deficiencies in the R.A.F. In view of the increasing complexity of the missiles and aircraft at the disposal of the Service—and one hopes that the R.A.F. will have the most up-to-date equipment in the future—it would be interesting to know the position in the various ground, electronic and similar trades. Has the right hon. Gentleman any anxieties in this connection?
The whole House welcomes the new scheme about which we were told earlier in the year and which will begin on 1st January. We wish that it will be a great success. I am sure that it is along the right lines towards giving young men the opportunity to further their technical education while serving in the R.A.F. There are excellent opportunities now for boys to acquire these skills in the Service. It may happen that after a relatively short career in the R.A.F. they will leave and join civilian life; but that is one of the risks one must take. It is now a matter of vital importance to keep up the technical skill of the Service because the future of the Air Force will depend as much on the ground back-up as on the skill and courage of the air crews.
I hope that in the general picture which the right hon. Gentleman painted he can also assure us that there are no difficulties in getting the necessary recruits for pilots and air crew generally. Controversy has raged about the future of the Air Force, with the cancellation of the missile and the fact that the Government have failed to provide the R.A.F. with Sky bolt, and so on. Have these events had any adverse effect on the recruitment of pilots? If the right hon. Gentleman can give us this further

information I am sure that my hon. Friends and I will be happy to give our blessing to the Motion.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. H. Fraser: I will try to answer briefly and quickly some of the points raised by the hon. Member since my hon. Friend does not propose to make a speech and since the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and I appear to be holding a two-man debate. I thank him for the way he has approached the problem and also for asking some interesting questions.
I believe that it would be out of order to discuss at length the question of pilot recruiting, but to refer to the matter briefly, I can assure him that the morale of the pilots is extremely high and that recruiting is good, particularly at Cranwell. We are getting a considerable number of people from the universities, which is particularly satisfactory.
The hon. Member mentioned the R.A.F. police. I hope that by April of next year there will be no deficiencies in this connection. I appreciate that not long ago a great deficiency existed and that we did not have more than 95 per cent. of the vacancies filled. However, it is hoped that by April alone 95 per cent. of the vacancies will be manned. This shows that the problem of police deficiency which existed about a year ago is diminishing.
Although there is no lack in ground crew and technical personnel, there are certain gaps, among officers in the 20 to 30 age group. We are hoping to fill these gaps in the next year or two. I explained the position of technicians and advanced technology personnel. We are raising the standard of technical entry through the Air Force schools. This applies to apprentices, and I am happy to say that we are quite well manned in this direction. It is worth recalling that although we ran down certain staff when the Thor decision was taken, an enormous amount of the technical skill which was required for that process is finding its place in dealing with some of the new weapons that are coming forward.
We are quite well placed in the provision of medical officers, both on the dental and medical side, but it must be remembered that this matter affects the


three Services and that the availability of medical personnel depends on the arrangements won by the British Medical Association from the Government of the day. The R.A.F. can claim credit for the excellence of its medical corps and the efficiency with which it attracts medical officers, apart from any question of mere monetary remuneration.
I am not in a position to give the hon. Member a full reply to his questions about motoring accidents in Germany. I am told that the situation is much the same as before, but I will write to him at greater length on the subject. However, I was informed by one insurance company the other day that it found R.A.F. personnel some of the best risks in the Services.
The hon. Member questioned me about the size of the R.A.F. It is impossible for me to give him a definite and clear picture, but certainly in the next few years we will be running down Bomber Command. I hope that we will be able to carry out some of the measures of reorganisation within the Force which will lead to a saving in manpower. In this connection, I would not say that it is a Service which is running down. I would rather describe it as a force which will be using some of the most skilled manpower in the country; and I am happy to say that we are able to get this manpower.

Mr. Mulley: I would like to make it clear that in using the term "running down" I was not referring to the Service as such but was speaking in terms of numbers, because it is obvious that with the increasing technical efficiency it is possible for fewer men to achieve the objectives of the R.A.F.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there are any trades or categories in the R.A.F. where it is not possible for a man to purchase his discharge?

Mr. H. Fraser: The hon. Member has raised a new point. A Written Answer has been given on this topic. I believe that there are 13 trades in which we are allowing people to achieve their discharge without payment. At the moment someone who has served for 16 years in the R.A.F. is able to obtain discharge without payment. We have in the last few weeks introduced an Order by which

in 13 specialist trades, because we have a surplus of manpower, people may be released without payment. This applies to a limited number of people, although it has been suggested in some newspapers that a large number are affected. In some trades a man is unable to purchase his discharge if a shortage of personnel exists. However, he may do so on compassionate grounds or for other reasons, if I first agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill deals with the reserves necessary for all three Services. It is the second one about the reserves which I have helped to bring before the House. The main feature of the last one was that we had to ask for powers to extend some people's term of National Service by a further six months, and to provide for the call-out in a state of international tension of part-time National Service men. It was a necessary Measure at the time, but no one liked it. I hope that the House will find this Bill, as I do, much more palatable. It is certainly indispensable both in its short- and long-term results.
Part of the Bill is the direct descendant of the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act which the House passed in 1954 and renewed as recently as 1959. During this period, there have been important changes both in our own defence policy and in the world situation. In particular, the Government have re-established the traditional British institution of an all-Regular Army, long-service, volunteer, and professional. These changes are the prelude to what we are proposing in this Bill.
In November, 1961, the then Secretary of State told the House that the War Office was carrying out a review of the reserves. This was a natural consequence of the decision to end National


Service, because a considerable part of the reserves were, and, indeed, still are. National Service men doing their part-time service or discharging their liability in the Army General Reserve. In the course of this review we have had to consider the consequences of the gradual drying up of the National Service element in our reserves. We have also had to study what sized reserve is required to support the Regular Army and what numbers of men the Regular Army will produce for service with the reserve.
I ought to apologise in advance in case my speech appears to be over-weighted with the Army aspect of these questions. The fact is that, this is a Bill about manpower, and it is an axiom that manpower problems bulk larger in the affairs of the Army than in those of the other two Services. There is some truth in the aphorism that, in the last resort, the Army equips men, whereas the other two Services man equipment: hence my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have been prepared to leave the introduction of the Bill to me.
Before I come to details of the Bill, I would like, if I may, to give the House a general picture of the reserves of today. It may help hon. Members to get clear the fairly complicated structure of our reserves if I draw attention to three separate sets of distinctions which run through all thinking on reserves; first, between limited war and general war, secondly, between pre-Proclamation and post-Proclamation reserves and, thirdly, between reserves providing individual reinforcements and those who go to their duty in formed reserve units.
For limited war we rely on the pre-Proclamation reserves to reinforce the Regular Army. Reservists used as individuals supplement the peace establishments of Regular Army units and bring them up to war strength. The reserve units are mainly those which have no counterpart in the Regular Army. They tend to be specialist in character, managing the operations of ports and railways, and so on. Once a Proclamation becomes justified, the post-Proclamation reserves become available to put B.A.O.R. on a war footing and to provide for the home defence of this country; they would also, in

part, provide individual reinforcements and, in part, complete units.
This is the broad framework. Let me now briefly remind the House of the categories of reserves available within this framework, and how we plan to use them.
Beginning, then, with the Regular Reserve, we have Section A. This consists, in the main, of men who have just left the colours. At present, they do a year's compulsory service in Section A, although many volunteer to stay on for longer. Their number fluctuates from year to year, depending on how many men leave the colours and how many volunteer for additional service.
Their role, broadly speaking, is to enable the Strategic Reserve and the theatre reserves concerned to be brought up to war strength. This is the logical use of these men because, in the event of limited war, these are fully trained men who can be made available in a hurry, and without a proclamation. They would go where they belong as individuals, and would quite easily fit back into the sort of Regular units of which they themselves had recently formed a part.

Mr. George Wigg: As there are not many hon. Members present, I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Minister if, as he goes along, I asked the questions that would, in any case, arise. That would enable me to avoid making another speech, which I do not want to make and would, at the same time, clear up these points.
For example, under Section A, I shall not ask the right hon. Gentleman the number—I can understand his not wanting to give us that—but, as I understand, there is a ceiling of 30,000 which I would have thought to be quite unrealistic, Is that a statutory ceiling, or does the Minister fix it up by Regulation? The question is: is there a ceiling? If there is, what is it, and what is the authority for it?

Mr. Ramsden: I speak subject to correction—and if I need to be corrected, my hon. Friend will do so when he replies—but I think that the hon. Member will understand if I describe the ceiling as a sort of Vote A figure. It is a figure given to guide the House as to the order of magnitude of the


reserve in question, while respecting what hon. Members accept in general, and as the hon. Gentleman has accepted, that it would be prejudicial to give the actual strengths.

Mr. Wigg: This is what puzzles me. As far as I can understand it, there is no ceiling to Section B.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are on the Second Reading of the Bill, and we really cannot carry on our proceedings as though the House were in Committee. I do not mind one or two questions, but continual interruptions are disorderly on Second Reading.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to make continual interruptions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman's statements are not intelligible unless one has the answers to these questions. I thought that it would be for his convenience—certainly for mine and, perhaps, for the rest of the House—if we cleared up the ceilings, and the authorities for them, as and when they arose. But if it is the only way to do it, I will wait until you call me. I will then have to go through these items, but we shall then be in exactly the same predicament as we are in now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am governed by what are the rules of the House.

Mr. Ramsden: I shall certainly try to assist the hon. Gentleman as far as I can as we go along. The only figure I have is 50,000 for the Regular Reserve, and that includes Sections A, B and D. I believe that my description of it as, so to speak, a Vote A figure of a ceiling, to give the House a broad indication of magnitude, is a correct one.
From Section A, then, come individuals to make up the strength of the limited war force. Sections B and D, the other main components of the Regular Reserve—in general, men who have passed through Section A—also go to war as individuals, but a proclamation is needed to recall them. We plan to make extensive use of them in emergency to go to Europe to reinforce B.A.O.R. This, again, is a logical use of manpower on the reasonable assumption that the sort of situation in which

we would want to use them would justify the making of a proclamation.
Those, then, are the regular reserves, and I now come to say a word about the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve. The present rôle and organisation of the T.A. is, I think, well understood by both them and by the House, and it is not affected by anything we are proposing to do in the Bill. But, in trying to present to the House a picture of the reserves position, I must, as it were, paint in the background which is provided for us and for the Regular Army by the existence of the T.A. and, indeed, of the A.E.R. which is the unique and invaluable background.
The T.A. has a distinguished record in war and in peace. Among its many virtues it has the invaluable one of flexibility. It undertakes, in fact, several rôles. It makes an indispensable contribution to our reinforcement plans for B.A.O.R., and also provides the framework within which we would mobilise, in extreme emergency, the land forces required for the home defence of this country.
The T.A. has also been able and willing to provide from within its ranks what is in effect the most readily available of all the reserves we have. I mean the T.A.E.R.—the "Ever-readies." The House has given the Secretary of State power to call them out for service anywhere without any limitations if he considers the circumstances warrant it.
When they were first started, there was a disposition in some quarters to regard them as window-dressing. I therefore wish to make clear, first, that this is a reserve of first-class military value; secondly, that its value looks like getting greater, rather than less, in the future; and thirdly, that great credit is due to my predecessor for the part he played in setting up this reserve.
Next, a word about the Army Emergency Reserve. This is divided into two parts, of which one has a pre-proclamation and the other a post-proclamation liability. The A.E.R., in the main, consists of formed units. In both parts, the units are of a specialist and administrative nature which are not maintained in the Regular Army in peace time and which, because of their specialist character, could not be raised on a local


basis in the Territorial Army. The pre-proclamation part of the Army Emergency Reserve is part of the limited war order of battle. The post-proclamation part is designed to reinforce B.A.O.R. and the forces required for Home Defence in the United Kingdom. In an emergency, we should lean very heavily upon these specialist units whose spirit and enthusiasm are of a very high order.
Finally, the Army General Reserve, which brings me on to Clause 1 of the Bill. First of all, what is the Army General Reserve for? We need them primarily for the reinforcement of the Territorial Army in a grave emergency, though some, mainly medical orderlies, drivers and clerks, would be required for B.A.O.R. What sort of people are they? There are over 1 million of them and they are all those who have been through National Service, whole and part-time or voluntary service in lieu, and are not yet 45 years of age.
The Army General Reserve, in its present form, is the direct product of National Service. The number available in it, over 1 million, as I have said, bears no relationship to any precise requirement but merely represents the number of men who have been through the National Service mill. This figure is more than is required. There will, however, still be a requirement for a substantial number of men who have had military training, primarily for the reinforcement of the Territorial Army for home defence.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes a change in the pattern of existing legislation by extending the 1954 Act for a further five years, but—and this is the point—we are confining its application to those who completed their liability under the National Service Act, 1948, after 31st December, 1962. The effect of this will be to release 1½ million men of all three Services from their liability. This will leave in, roughly speaking, trained men of about 25 years of age, and their numbers will be topped up until 1966 by other men of about this age as they, in trun, come to the end of their National Service liability.
Over the five years 1964 to 1969, this Clause will produce a reserve which builds up to about 185,000 men of which 25,000 are naval reservists. The form

of extension we are proposing also makes liable some 34,000 R.A.F. Class G reservists.
Here, I ought diffidently to say a word about the Navy's problem, which is rather different from that of the Army. Its requirements are much smaller. Its reservists liable under the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1954, are held in the Royal Naval Special Reserve, the Navy's equivalent of the Army General Reserve. In a grave emergency, these men would be used chiefly to maintain the capability to man the ships in the Reserve Fleet and to replace men who, on mobilisation, would be transferred from shore establishments to seagoing ships.
This requirement is expected to be met in time from the Royal Fleet Reserve—the Navy's Regular Reserve—and from the Royal Naval Reserve—the Volunteer Reserve—but during the late 1960s the strength of the Royal Fleet Reserve will decline because of a short gap between the last of the men who entered it on special service engagement completing their time in the R.F.R. and the first of the men on the long service and reserve engagement entering the R.F.R.
Those now serving with the Royal Fleet Reserve will be encouraged to sign on for a further period with the reserve, but we considered it essential that the Navy should be in a position to call upon the Royal Naval Special Reserve until 1969, by which time the Royal Fleet Reserve will be built up to full strength again. My noble Friend is satisfied that, after 1970, the Navy will be able to meet foreseeable commitments in any emergency by calling on the R.F.R. or R.N.R. and on pensioners, as necessary.
To sum up, the form of extension of the 1954 Act proposed in the Bill will have the effect of releasing 1½ million men from this liability. The men will be released with effect from the date of Royal Assent. The remaining numbers are absolutely essential to our mobilisation plans, and I must make it clear that, to meet our requirements, there is no alternative to asking the House to extend the 1954 Act. This, of course, poses the question of what will happen after 1969 when the extension of the Act runs out, producing much the same


situation as we have now if the operational requirements continue the same.
I shall have more to say later about possible means of filling the gap which will develop, but one in particular I wish to deal with now because it is the subject of Clause 2. I should make clear at this point that Clause 2 applies only to the Army. The problem we shall have to face is the disappearance of the Army General Reserve, unless the Act is extended yet again in 1969.
The House will have observed that the general characteristic of these Army general reservists is that they have all had basic military training and a period of service in the Armed Forces such as leaves them fit, even when they become older men and even after some years out of touch with Service life, to take their place in various sorts of units, mainly those with a home defence rôle.
Where are such men to be found, when the ex-National Service men have become too old? The answer can only be from those who have done service with the Regular Army, who should have completed their colour and reserve service and who will still be young enough to meet this particular requirement, really because—and this is the important thing—it will still come as second nature to them to form part, once again, of a disciplined force under orders.
It seems to us sound that the potential source of manpower which lies in these ex-Regulars should be at the disposal of the country in time of need, and in Clause 2 we provide for the creation of a long-term reserve of ex-Regular soldiers which will give effect to this intention.
There are one or two points of detail in connection with Clause 2 which I should mention. First, and most important, the Clause applies only to men enlisting after the Bill comes into force. Secondly, there is a point in connection with this long-term reserve which I should stress. I do not believe that the new liability it represents will be of such a nature as to discourage a man from joining the Army. The sort of situation in which this category of the reserve might be used is one in which, I believe, every man would wish to place

his services at the disposal of the country. The existence of this reserve will enable us, in such a situation, to make the best use of those men who, by virtue of military training in earlier life, represent some of the most valuable elements of the nation's manpower in an emergency.
What about the position in 1969, when this extension of the Army General Reserve has come to an end, and before the build-up of the long-term reserve—that is the Clause 2 reserve—has had a chance to take effect? This is an Army problem and does not bother the other two Services. In dealing with a period of five, or even 10, years ahead, I do not believe that the House would wish to tie me to announcing any clear-cut plans, but rather that I should indicate what means there would be open to us for dealing with the situation.
In the first place, much will depend on the military needs of the time and the House will appreciate that these are not easy to forecast five or 10 years ahead. It would be quite reasonable to propose a further extension of the Army General Reserve in 1969. The trained men would still be available in sufficient numbers and their ages would be between 28 and 31, which the House has already endorsed as being a reasonable proposition.
It would also be open to us to make use of volunteer elements of the reserve Army, for example, by further recruiting to the Territorial Army, which is recruiting well at the moment. Thus there would be means for dealing with the situation and these will need to be considered more carefully nearer the time when the Army's requirement can be more accurately predicted.
I come now to Clause 3 of the Bill, which affects both the Army and the R.A.F. I explained earlier that Section A of the Army Regular Reserve are the people who are immediately available without a proclamation and who comprise the most recently trained Regular Reserve manpower. The legal basis of this Reserve is an existing provision in the Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1950, under which a man can be designated when he finishes the active part of his engagement for a special liability during the first year of his reserve service. He undertakes to


accept this liability as part of the conditions under which he enlists.
In practice, we also accept volunteers for this reserve from Regular reservists, and these together with men in the year of their designation, form the most important and valuable source of trained manpower we have. In the Clause we are asking for powers to designate for periods not exceeding three years as against the present one. This will, of course, apply only to men enlisting after the Bill comes into effect. We did not feel that it would be right to alter the terms of service of men who had already enlisted.

Mr. Wigg: Do the rates of pay shown in Section A of Appendix III of the Army Estimates for 1963–64 apply to all men designated or only to those who volunteer?

Mr. Ramsden: There is one rate of pay for those in Section A and a lower rate of pay for those in Section B.

Mr. Wigg: Do the rates in Section A apply to all the men in Section A?

Mr. Ramsden: As I understand it, yes.
I was saying that, in practice, we also accept volunteers for this reserve from Regular reservists. I had made the point that clearly it would not have been right to alter the terms of service of men who had already enlisted and that this Clause would therefore apply, if the House accepted it, to future enlistments.
We need the powers proposed in the Bill because with the single year's term, and notwithstanding the volunteer element, the numbers in this reserve are not sufficient for our pre-proclamation needs. With this in mind, we are asking the House for powers to designate for up to three years, but, in practice, if the volunteer element continues unchanged, and if our operational commitments do not increase, I would hope that we should be able to designate men for two years only. But I think it sensible to ask the House for power to designate for three years so as to be able to deal with possible fluctuations both in the commitments of the reserve and its size.
The position in the R.A.F. is similar to that of the Army, except that in certain trades it will probably be necessary to designate men for the full period of three

years. I should add that both for the Army and the Royal Air Force this proposal does not represent any addition in time to a man's reserve service. He will merely spend more time in one category and less in another than at present and he will, of course, get the appropriate pay for the more immediate liability to recall which he assumes by the change.

Mr. Wigg: Surely that is not quite right. In the case of a Regular soldier now, once he has joined the Army he is under a liability until he is 45. Under the provisions of the General Reserve, if he is 18 when he joins, the Army has him now until he is 27 years.

Mr. Ramsden: I am speaking about the liability under Clause 3.

Mr. Wigg: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member may not have quite understood that the point he is now on is dealt with in Clause 2. The proposal in Clause 2 does not represent an increase in a man's reserve service. We are asking the House to add to the reserve service an increase in total reserve liability. Technically, however, this is something slightly different and we can pursue this in Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I ought to raise the point on Clause 2, but I thought that the Minister was passing to Clause 3 and was saying that the Bill added no liability beyond a man's reserve service. I went back to Clause 2, because, as I understand it, it does.

Mr. Ramsden: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Originally, I was saying that the proposal in Clause 3 does not represent any addition in time to a man's reserve service. When we pursue Clause 2 further in Committee, the hon. Member will find that neither does Clause 2, which deals with the long-term reserve, represent any addition to a man's reserve service in the technical sense of those words. That, however, is not a material point. We can pursue it in Committee.
That brings me to the end of the main provisions of the Bill. They will mean a considerable step forward in improving the position of the reserve forces. A large number of men have been released from a liability which, even if it has never had to be invoked, none the less


existed. Smaller numbers will have been given other liabilities. From a military point of view, it is necessary that the House should endorse these proposals and I hope that the Bill may be given a Second Reading.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I should like to add to the congratulations which have been given to the new Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. I am fortified in so doing having regard to his speech a few minutes ago on the previous Order. The hon. Gentleman is a man who is highly regarded in Europe. Having only just returned from Paris, from the meeting of Western European Union, I know of the regard in which he is held there and the many offices which he has held, including that of Chairman of the General Affairs Committee. He is held in high regard also in Strasbourg.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss from me if I quote the remarks of one of his colleagues, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), last Tuesday in Paris, when he referred to the new office of his hon. Friend. In discussing a report by M. Bourgoin concerning the shortage of forces on the Continent, the hon. Member for Antrim, North said:
…any comments which he may have made of the weakness of the British forces at present in West Germany should be quickly cured, because that very great friend of Western European Union, Mr. Peter Kirk, recently the Chairman of the General Affairs Committee, has now taken a portfolio in the War Office in London, and if anyone is likely to bring Britain's forces in Germany up to the full letter of her treaty obligations it is Mr. Kirk.
With those few words, I hope that Europe will not expect too much from the Under-Secretary. A great deal has been promised of him. He is indeed, the secret weapon of the Government concerning our forces in Europe.
We frequently have an opportunity in the House of Commons to discuss the Army, but on far too infrequent occasions do we discuss solely our reserves. This discussion comes soon after the passage of the recent Army Reserve Act, and it will be of great advantage for a few moments to discuss our reserves and the position outlined by the

Bill. The reserves play a vital and important role. I would not attempt an exhaustive definition of what they should do and should be capable of doing, save that they are the bodies that raise the Army from its peace-time establishment to an effective force to meet whatever commitment is required to be met. If, however, the force is to be effective, it is vital that the bodies should be there and that they should be of the type and have the requirements that are needed; and secondly, that the whereabouts of these bodies should be known.
On 31st January of last year my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) complained during the Committee stage discussions on the Army Reserve Bill that far too frequently the whereabouts of the General Reserve was not always known. He said:
The General Reserve is composed of men who have completed their service with the colours and have gone through their three-and-a-half years reserve service. They are liable to recall. The general powers run out in June, 1964. There are about 800,000 of them"—
obviously my hon. Friend was underestimating the number, according to the remarks of the Secretary of State today. He said—he is a sporting man—
I am willing to bet a modest sum that if an attempt were made to call up those men it would be found that probably as many as 75 per cent. of them had changed their addresses."—[Official Report, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1224.]
My hon. Friend was implying that not only had they changed their addresses but it would be exceedingly difficult to find their new addresses.
I ought perhaps, as I have done on previous occasions, to declare a minor interest in this Bill and the position of the reserves. Like others in this House, I am an ex-National Service man. Hon. Members may or may not believe it, but I have completed my Regular service and my part-time service and I think that I am right in saying—if I have read the Explanatory Memorandum correctly—that I am now on the Army General Reserve. It confirms the remark of my hon. Friend last year that I can say that for many years I have not received a billet doux from the War Office. No suggestion has been made that I should tell the War Office where I now live and, so far as I know the War Office has made no inquiry


regarding my whereabouts. If I am in a position similar to that of others of this large body of 800,000 men, then, as my hon. Friend remarked, there are perhaps a large number whose addresses we do not know. This is of vital importance. If we are to have an effective reserve force we should know where to find the men in an emergency, and I should like an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State about the system of ensuring that the whereabouts of the existing reservists is known and when that system was last tested. What assurance can the hon. Gentleman give that, if it were necessary, we could discover where the reservists are. What percentage of them could he find? Was my hon. Friend far out when he said he would take a modest bet that it would be difficult to find 75 per cent. of these men?
Clause 1 of the Bill extends the 1954 Act, under which I and others were liable to serve until January, 1964, in the Army General Reserve. When this Bill becomes an Act, its provisions will apply only to those who have completed their full-time and part-time service after 31st December of this year. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that a very large number of men will be released altogether. It states:
…this will release from liability a considerable number of men to whom the Act has hitherto applied.
Continuing from there, obviously the number of men on the reserve in future will be those who completed their service after 31st December of this year until the end of National Service, full-time and part-time, some day in 1966. Therefore, at the beginning this will be a very small force. It will be topped up from time to time, but after the middle of 1966 it will be static and constant and there will be no further accretion to it. The pool will have dried up with the ending of liability for part-time National Service.
The second Clause of the Bill is more controversial than the first. Here is an attempt, which will, I think, succeed, by me Government to impose an additional liability on Regular soldiers. It will apply to new Regular soldiers who enlist after the Bill comes into effect. It should be made perfectly clear to all who enlist after the Bill comes into effect

that they will have this additional liability, and I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary about that. It would be very bad if the additional liability were to be imposed on men who were not aware that they were taking it on. Therefore, the matter should be made perfectly clear to them.
I do not know offhand the shortest period of Regular service that one can undertake in the Regular Forces now, but I believe that in the Guards one can do a three-year period with an additional period of part-time service after that. If that is the position, it may mean that a young man who enlists at 18 for a very short period of service, perhaps three years with an additional liability to serve on the reserve for a few years after that, will now under the Bill be liable until he is 45—for twenty-seven years in all. This would be a substantial departure from the liability which his predecessors would have imposed on themselves had they joined before the Bill came into effect. There is a very great deal of difference between a complete and overall liability for six or nine years and one which includes an additional liability to serve, if called upon, for an additional period of perhaps nineteen or twenty years. It would be quite contrary to what the Secretary of State had in mind if these people were buying a pig in a poke.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed very confident that the new additional liability would not affect recruitment. I hope he is right. If it affects recruitment it may be a very serious matter. I expected that he would be telling the House that as a quid pro quo for the additional liability there would be some additional financial inducement to the people who join the Army after the Bill comes into effect, because those who join the day before will not have the additional commitment and those who join shortly afterwards will, as I understand it, have the same financial reimbursement as their predecessors merely because they joined perhaps a day after the Bill comes into effect. Perhaps we can deal with the details at a later stage in the proceedings, but I should have thought that the Minister would have given us some indication on these lines.
There is a part of the Bill which the Secretary of State did not mention, or


else I did not hear him mention it. I refer to the provision making it possible for Regular soldiers either serving now or on the Reserve also to volunteer for this liability. Therefore, there are two categories who will be affected by Clause 2—those who join after the Bill comes into force, and those now serving in some capacity who opt for the additional liability. If the Secretary of State is not attracted by my argument for giving additional financial reimbursement to those who join after the Bill comes into force, since they will have to accept an additional liability, I believe that my argument on behalf of those joining before the Bill conies into force and opting for the additional liability is very strong. What is the inducement to make them take on this additional commitment? I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not given us any indication of this. Perhaps we can return to that matter also at a later stage.
We cannot deal with the reserves mentioned in the Bill without considering the whole of the reserves available to the Army. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Territorials—who are not affected directly by the Bill—and also the "Ever-readies". When the "Ever-readies" were introduced the Secretary of State—then the Undersecretary of State—rebutted talk of "window dressing" and repeated that there were high hopes in this scheme. The object was to supplement the Regular Army where needed.
Today the present Under-Secretary of State has indicated that he dislikes targets. Indeed, we have never really known the target set for the Regular Army by successive Secretaries of State. It appears to have been a moving target, difficult to aim at. Yet with monotonous regularity Secretaries of State have been able to claim a bull's-eye. Whatever the number of recruits at any time, it has always happened to be precisely the number needed.
We should examine more closely the position of the "Ever-readies." Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us tonight what is the establishment? What proportion has this force to the Territorial Army? When pressed on the matter on 1st February last year, the former Secretary of State said:

I do not want to be definite, because in this matter we have to feel our way. It is my idea that the figure should be about one-third.
Mr. Profumo was referring there to the size compared with the Territorial Army. How far have we progressed in that direction? Have the Government succeeded in the aim of getting one-third "Ever-readies" to the total of the Territorial Army? The impression conveyed by Mr. Profumo was that because of the bounty offered there would be a big rush to join the "Ever-readies" and that commanding officers would face a difficult task in having to turn men away since only the very best would be taken. This was to be a crack force.
Mr. Profumo would not be tied down to any accurate figure, but he did discuss possible ceilings. Also on 1st February last year he said:
Here again, I wish to be careful, because we are starting something new. But, to give the Committee an idea, may I say that I have in mind a ceiling of about 15,000…"—[Official Report, 1st February, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1156–8.]
Later on, Mr. Profumo spoke of an increase in the Emergency Reserve when he discussed the pre-proclamation reserves as a whole. The indication was that the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve should be about 15,000.
Before giving the Bill a Second Reading, the House will want to know some indication of the measure of success in raising the "Ever-readies." Stern warnings were issued by both sides of the House when the scheme was introduced about the hazards of training these men with the existing Territorial Army. How has this worked in practice?
If the scheme has not succeeded as well as expected and a ceiling has not been reached, despite all the talk of there being such a rush that only the best would be taken, perhaps we may be told whether the failure has in any way led to Clause 2of this Bill. If Clause 2 is a recognition of the limited success—or partial failure, possibly—of the ever-readies, perhaps in this way the Government are seeking to offset the deficiency by imposing an additional liability on a new class of Regulars and ex-Regulars. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain how the "Ever-readies" are faring.
This is an important Bill for many National Service men. It marks the end of a commitment which has not had a marked influence on our lives in recent years, but it is a step in the direction of transferring a liability which was imposed on National Service men to Regulars who have contracted to do a period of service in the Forces. Before we part with the Bill, I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a clear indication that he is satisfied that the additional liability for Regulars will not affect recruiting, which is a vital consideration. It would be tragic if we leaped from the frying pan of a commitment for National Service men into the fire of a commitment for Regulars and a consequent adverse effect on recruiting.
I cannot add anything more except to say that our reserves should be effective and adequate and at all times suitable to the task which they are required to undertake. I hope that close tabs will be kept on the other National Service men who in future will come under Clause 1 and that the War Office will always know where they are, so that if they are needed in some eventuality they can be called upon to fulfil their tasks.

9.0 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East): As my right hon. Friend has said, this Bill is concerned with manpower, the size of the Army and the mobilisation plan. I welcome it mainly because it draws attention to the need for reserves and to the importance both of the function of the reserves and the necessity to support them in all possible ways.
My right hon. Friend said that Section A reserves will be increased by the provisions of Clause 3. Sections B and D have already been mentioned when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) discussed the ceiling figure, and the necessity for the other reserves is obviously dependent upon those two figures together.
Although my right hon. Friend believes that the rô1e of the reserves in general end the Territorial Army in particular is widely appreciated, that is less so than is desirable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reiterate the importance of the rôle of the reserves, particularly that of the

Territorial Army. This is not known widely or understood as clearly as it should be, although it was set out in the White Paper of 1960. It has not changed since then, but it has not been repeated sufficiently often.
By the Bill, a wider public, particularly those affected by it and all forms of Army reservists, including those in the Territorial Army, will realise for the first time that the Territorial Army's function an a reserve for B.A.O.R. is vital and should be its first commitment. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spoke of the "Ever-readies," but the Territorial Army still maintains its unit and territorial basis. Some of the difficulties encountered by the "Ever-ready" scheme may be partly due to its not having a territorial or unit basis. Both are vital to the Territorial Army.
If the Territorial Army is to play the rôle mentioned by my right hon. Friend, it must be much better equipped and trained. The misgivings in the Territorial Army about its own rôle, necessity and functions largely derive from the fact that its equipment and training are below the necessary standards. Hon. Members will have read an article in The Times on 23 rd October, by its defence correspondent, when he expressed doubt about the adequacy and training of the Territorial Army. This article was widely read and was taken to heart by those whose duty it is to train the Territorial Army and who feel that they do not have the equipment which they would like. I realise that my right hon. Friend will say that they will never get the equipment they would like, but I think that examination would show that they have less than an adequate amount at the moment.
If it is numerically necessary for the Territorial Army to fulfil the reserve function about which we have heard today, it will go a long way towards solving our overall manpower problem, but I do not think that it can do this unless it is trained to an adequate standard, and to reach this standard it requires more equipment than it has.
If we accept that we need this reinforcement, and if we intend the reserves to include the Territorial Army, we must, first, consider whether additional


man-training days are necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this because I do not consider that the present number of man-training days is adequate. I think that there is considerable substance in the suggestion that there is a financial aspect to this which could be overcome.
Secondly, it is urgently necessary to make available to the Territorial Army more arms, equipment, and clothing to the standard used by the Regular Army. I recognise that this cannot be done on a full unit scale, and I am not asking for that. I am asking for the standard which the Regular Army enjoys in these three things to be made available to the Territorial Army, although I understand that it will have to be less than to the full unit scale required by the Regular Army.
Thirdly, if we are to include reserves effectively in our defences, we must face the expense of using them more widely in overseas training. The attraction of overseas training to the reserve army is obviously greater than any other single item, and is of great value. This can be seen by anyone who has visited the B.A.O.R., as other hon. Members and I did recently. This applies not only to Regular reservists in the B.A.O.R., but to members of the Territorial Army, a number of whom I saw there. It was clear that, both from the point of view of the Regular Army unit to which they were attached, and from that of the men, this was an excellent training and recruiting measure.
Lastly, I refer to what my right hon. Friend said in connection with pre-proclamation and post-proclamation call-up, because I consider that the law on this matter requires examination. I know that this is a controversial point, but it appears that our pre-proclamation call-up and our post-proclamation call-up are not adequately balanced. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this point, too.
My hon. Friend has impressed the House with the competence, and ease with which he has taken command at the Box. I hope that he will comment on what I believe to be some urgent problems which I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: When I first saw the Bill I went back to the Defence White Paper of 1962 and looked at paragraph 38. The last sentence of that paragraph says:
An examination of the whole reserve system is in hand.
We have had statements in debates to the same effect and I thought we should get a comprehensive Bill which would lay the foundations of reserve policy for some time ahead.
Before coming to the merits of the Bill and the comments I want to make on it, may I clear up one or two items of what I call mechanics? In trying to understand the reserve situation I am guided by the Army Estimates for 1963–64. I certainly have no complaint about Appendix III. The details are all there. I would, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would certainly help me if, in future issues, he would give the dates on which the various financial inducements were introduced. For example, I understand that the rates of reserve pay for Section A were introduced on 16th June, 1948, for Section B on 1st January, 1947, and for Section C on 1st April, 1949, and then we have the dates of the pre-proclamation payments for the A.E.R., and so on.
I shall not weary the House with the minutiae, but if the Secretary of State would be kind enough to write to me to clear up these points I should be obliged because, before we reach the Committee stage, I want to understand where we have got to. When I move to Appendix III, about which I have no complaints, and then to Vote 2, I find myself in difficulties. I went into the position and endeavoured to understand it when the previous reserves Bill came before the House. The ceiling for Section A, I understand—I got the figures from the War Office—was 30,000. If that 30,000 is included in the 80,000 mentioned on page 30 of the Estimates for 1962–63 and in the corresponding figure on page 15 of the 1963–64 Estimates, how comes it that the figure is reduced from 80,000 to 50,000?
I suppose that it must be that although no ceiling was fixed for Section B the ceiling for Section A was quite unrealistic. I shall not mention the


actual strength as at the date when I got those figures, but it appears to bear no relation to the ceiling whereas in Section B there was no ceiling but the strength of Section B was many times higher than that of Section A. My difficulty is in not mentioning the actual figures, but they come to less than 80,000 and 50,000 and I wonder whether they are realistic. I understand that for security reasons they are not given and I shall understand if the Secretary of State is not able to give me an answer now.
The figure for Section D was not in these figures, but it was an entirely administrative ceiling. Why the right hon. Gentleman should want an administrative ceiling for Section D when it was miles above the actual figure for Section D, I cannot comprehend. There may be some explanation and I hope that it can be given. When we come to the A.E.R. we find that there was a ceiling for Category A of 15,000 and for Category 2A of 13,000, but when we turn to the Estimates for 1963–64 we find a ceiling on the reserve of 130,000 which, again, is quite unrealistic. I have refrained from giving the actual figures.

Mr. Ramsden: So as not to leave too much for my hon. Friend the Under-secretary to answer, I shall try to clear this up straight away. I think that the explanation lies in the breakdown between normal volunteers, which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will find in the column under "Statement of Defence", where it is analysed, and National Service men doing their part-time liability. They go into that reserve and are responsible for greatly increasing the number over the normal number for volunteers in the reserve.

Mr. Wigg: I thought that that was the explanation. I will not press the Minister to give figures, but I rightly understand the arguments against it.
But where there are ceilings and they can be stated, may we be told what they are? Having given us all the information which he has given in Appendix III, will he give a little additional information to enable someone coming fresh to the subject after some time to understand what it is all about? Will he consider in a footnote or footnotes on Vote 2, on page 15, setting out what the

ceilings are because it would enable my hon. Friends to understand the position without pressing the right hon. Gentleman to give information which it would be embarrassing to him to have to give.
Earlier this evening I was involved in a number of controversies with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), who drew me on the issue of selective service. My offer on this subject is plain. I will vote for a Bill for selective service which is introduced by the present Government without any hesitation at all, because, first, I know that they will not do it, and, secondly, we have a measure of selective service of the most iniquitous, the most vicious, the most incompetent and the most short sighted kind; and the Bill is another example of it.
Look what we do in the name of justice. The National Service men who were unfortunate enough to be caught up, and were required to do an additional period after they had served, are now to have an additional reserve liability. Those National Service men who did not finish their time until after 31st December, 1962, are caught. This form of selective service always imposes an extra liability on the unfortunate who finds himself within the Government's target. In other words, the Government, faced with a situation, grabs anyone willy nilly.
Let us look at the Regular soldier's situation. Take the man who, after the passing of the Bill, joins the Guards for three years with the colours and nine years with the reserve, or six years and six years, or whatever it is. He does his time and then perhaps volunteers. He is designated for a year. Perhaps he slays on and volunteers for three years on Section A, and then has a spell on Section B. He gets married and settles down. Perhaps he becomes a teacher or does extra-mural studies, takes a decree and gets an administrative post. He is 40. His children are going to university, or thinking of going there. He is still paying for his house. He has a car—all started from very honourable beginnings. Then there is an emergency, and because, years before, he was a Regular soldier, a notice is brought to the door and he is called up.
I well remember being approached by right hon. Gentlemen opposite on an


Adjournment debate on the eve of Suez and asked not to press the subject on that debate, because of the danger of mutiny among the reserves who were called back. This is happening time and again. If hon. Members want the ingredients of indiscipline or discontent or hatred of the Army, then impose this liability and fail to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked—tell these men what will happen and give them time for second thoughts. I give notice that in Committee I shall put down an Amendment requiring a plain statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to serve a written notice on these young men stating, "As from the date of your enlistment you maybe designated to serve in the Section A for a year, for which you will get reserve pay, and from when your reserve liability is ended until you reach the age of 45, until your 46th birthday, you will be liable to recall."
That notice should be given, but not by the recruiting officer. A recruit should be given written notice of exactly what the House is letting a Regular soldier in for because it has not the guts to face up to a situation which has been developing for a long time and about which we warned the Government in the last debate on a reserves Bill. We have had a series of these. This is not the first one. We had the "Ever-readies". I have tabled a number of Questions about their strength.
I discussed the matter with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I have a fair idea what the targets are. At 30th June last the strength was about 4,200. It is negligible. As a policy it failed. It failed for a very simple reason. The Territorial Army draws its strength from pleasure in serving in a particular unit. It has a local appeal. A man is either a member of the Territorial Army, of which he is proud, or he is a member of the Regular force.
A high rate of bounty is to be paid, but if ever these men are called up that is when the fun will start. A number of them, particularly as the years roll by, will have one thousand and one reasons why they should not be called up. What is wanted is a reserve liability in a moment of national emergency when national unity and national

discipline are of paramount importance so that the liability at that moment rests fairly and squarely right across the nation. It should not be imposed in a fashion entirely guided by reasons of political expediency, hoping that no one will notice, hoping that the power will never be exercised and, if the power has to be exercised, hoping that the numbers affected will be so small that, although there will be some squeals, they will not be heard.
We shall have this out in Committee. I hope very much that, without any pressure from my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fair and honourable man, will see the force of this argument and will himself take steps to table an Amendment to meet the spirit of the very reasonable request which we are making that these men should not be taken in by a side wind but that there should be a written notice explaining to them what they are letting themselves in for.
Having said that, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find no difficulty in believing me when I say that I do not want to use this to harm recruiting. That is the last thing I want to do and it is the last thing that my hon. Friends want to do. We should be very sad indeed if that happened, but, equally, we should be failing in our duty if we did not warn the right hon. Gentle man of what might happen. After all, we do this from a sense of justice and in a desire to do justice to the regular soldier.
I come now to a point on which I am a little foxed. Section 1(2) of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, establishes Class 1 and Class 2 of the Army Reserve. Class 2 is said to consist of out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital. As far as I know, this provision has never been applied and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would take it out at some time if ever he has to amend this Act, as he is not using this power.
The provision reads in this way:
The second class shall consist of men who—
(a) being out-pensioners of Chelsea hospital…
Out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital are not the gentlemen who walk round in red coats. They are all those who, like myself, have earned a few shillings as a


result of serving in the Regular Army. We are described as out-pensioners of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea. This picturesque description, which has been in the Act since 1950, which is never used because Class 2 is itself never used, and which as it stands imposes a liability to recall, is out of date and might well be put right.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will stay at the War Office to do this. I serve notice of this on my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. One of the things they might well do when they reach the War Office is to look at the reserve Acts, look at the policy as a whole, and bring forward a consolidation Act based upon a proper policy. What the Government are doing is getting themselves out of a jam which they have got into because of their recruiting policies as a whole.
The basis of all sound Army policy is to look 10 to 20 years ahead and, in doing so, to produce a consolidation Act based on firm principles on which one can rely even 20 years hence. Doing this is the first road to wisdom. I appreciate that it will take a lot of wisdom to achieve this, particularly when Parliamentary time is short. However, if it is done any Government will not only evolve a wise long-term policy, but will also take the necessary steps to avoid a great deal of embarrassment in the short term. This is sound sense and I hope that this advice will be taken.

9.26 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill because it represents a sensible way of using troops. When a man has been trained in the Regular Army or during National Service there is no reason why he should not continue to act in the reserve services.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the other reserves—the Army Emergency Reserve and the Territorial Army—because the House cannot possibly examine the position without considering them all. It should be made clear at the outset that we have today accepted the necessity of having reserves as part of our defence policy. I trust that employers throughout the country will also accept this and will regard it as their contribution towards defence to make sure that those who are liable for reserve

service are released and that their jobs are retained I appreciate that provision is made for this in the Bill, but while legal provision is one thing the spirit of an employer to accept his obligations is another.
One of the most important aspects of the Bill—covered by Clauses 1 and 2—is the attempt to ensure that people liable for service undergo proper training. It is no good calling someone up three years after he had done Regular service only to find that he is completely out of touch. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that people are kept abreast of modern trends so that when they are called up they are not out of touch.
It is important that the "Ever-ready" reserves are given the opportunity of training abroad. This not only enables a trained man to keep up to date with modern equipment but also gives him some incentive for wishing to join the reserves. Many men will be willing to join if they know that they will be sent to, say, B.A.O.R., Singapore. It is equally important that men should be sent abroad in groups rather than individually. Many men do not like the idea of going to a unit where they feel strange and do not know anyone. On the other hand, if they can go with a few of their mates from their own units at home they feel happier and enjoy their training more.
It is important that addresses should be kept up to date. My right hon. Friend might occasionally consider having a test call-up to see how the Bill is working. He could, perhaps, call up 150 men and see how many report within 24 hours. If 96 turn up he will have an idea of the general reaction. In this connection, when reserves are called up, what is the priority? Will the pre-proclamation reserves be called up before the "Ever-readies" or with them? The Bill does not make this clear and it would be advisable to clear this up so that everyone concerned will know his obligation.
In our reserves, we should provide something that has not been provided before; senior officers should be given a chance of refresher courses. If the Army were to expand, as it would have to on mobilisation, we would need a large number of senior staff officers. In the past, these have been found from the lower echelons is of the existing Army, but there should be facilities to give reserve


officers refresher courses at the Staff College of the Imperial Defence College, so providing ourselves with a large fund of officers capable of doing these jobs in an emergency.
I know that reserve training periods are limited for financial reasons, but I know, too, that many men—officers in particular—would like the periods extended. At one time, an officer in the Supplementary Reserve could train for up to six months a year, but training is now limited to 15 days and then to so many individual days. It would be well worth while to allow those who wished to serve longer to do so, because the benefit derived from someone really keen on his Service is enormous.
The financial position could easily be dealt with. My right hon. Friend earlier mentioned equipment, which is one of the problems facing the Territorial Army. The only way I can see of getting over that is to make sure that from each unit a small élite subsection is sent to train with units abroad, where the better equipment is available. I know that in the last few years my right hon. Friend has made great efforts to see that the Territorial Army is trained abroad, but perhaps he might leave it to commanding officers to send their best sections or companies abroad for training. That would act as an incentive to the Territorial Army to become efficient, and would give it a chance to work with troops in Europe with the most modern equipment.
We must have the reserves. I hope that the country will accept that fact and, in particular, that employers will. People must be made to realise that this is an essential part of our defence, and that those doing the job play an important rôle. Employers must appreciate that not only is this task important but that they themselves get some benefit from having their employees trained in the Army and being part of the national defence programme. That being so, I hope that all employers will take a much more progressive view of these men doing their service in whatever arm of the reserve it may be.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: We have had a short but interesting debate on the Bill, but I am

still not satisfied on one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) drew attention to the review that we were told was being made of the whole question of the reserve forces, and I should like to hear a little bit more about that before agreeing to giving the Bill its Second Reading. Has that review been completed? If so, is the Bill the result of that review? Are we not to have any other information about the results of the review? The main question is: is the Bill the only thing that has come out of the review which we were told about a short time ago?
We have to look at the need for such a Measure as this. It obviously arises from the general manpower problem, and not just from the position of reserves from which the Army has suffered for some years. I was rather horrified at a comment I understood the Secretary of State to make when he was speaking just now, to the effect that the full review has been carried out, that the Bill is the result, but that the Secretary of State apparently still does not know what exactly he will be able to do, or what it may be necessary for him to do, with the reserves in the period 1968–71, or thereabouts, when the existing reserve will begin to fade away and before the new reserve provided for by Clause 2 really becomes effective in terms of numbers.
If the full review has been carried out, some suggestions must have been put forward for the filling of the gap to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred. If we are being asked now to deal with a Bill which comes as a result of the review, we should be given a little more information about how the gap is to be filled. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had one or two ideas about ways of filling it, but we should be told rather more than that.
One way of filling the gap is mentioned in Clause 2 which, as I understand it, makes it possible for existing Regular soldiers or existing reservists to opt to be treated in the same way, and take a liability up to 45 years of age, as anyone who signs on for a Regular engagement after the Bill becomes law. I should like to know how they will be persuaded to do this. How will the existing reservist or Regular soldier be persuaded, cajoled


or asked to take on an additional liability?
Presumably, some arrangements have been made for publicising this additional liability to existing Regulars and reservists of one kind and another, but what is the exact approach to be? Will it be a purely patriotic appeal, drawing to their attention the fact that their services are required in the new reserve? There must be some idea in the back of the Minister's mind of how he will persuade people to accept a liability which at present they do not have. This may be one way of bridging the gap which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Another reason for the Bill, as I see it, is the complete failure, according to the figures we have had so far, of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has already drawn attention to the fact that the then Secretary of State had in mind a total of about 15,000 men being engaged in this reserve. He gave the impression at that time that the 15,000 men chosen would come from, perhaps, 30,000 or 35,000 men who would be rushing to volunteer and get the £150 bounty which would enable them—these were the right hon. Gentleman's words—to take their wives on holiday or buy them fur coats. This was the whole idea of the scheme; it was to be extremely attractive to existing members of the Territorial Army. Indeed, we were told that the numbers would be so great that there would be a careful screening by Territorial Army colonels, to start with. The initial responsibility was put on the colonel to submit only the names of those men who, he was absolutely certain, were good soldiers who knew their trade and who would be effective in the new reserve.
More than that, the numbers would be so great that there was to be another screening. After the men who were satisfactory had been sorted out, there would be a screening at a higher level so that only the men whose trades were necessary in such a reserve would ultimately be accepted. At the end of it all, we should get 15,000 men, through this double screening process, who would be soldiers in the Territorial Army doing Regular training and liable to call to go to fill up the gaps, mainly—this was the intention at the time—in Europe, They would be round pegs for

round holes in the Regular Army, so the Secretary of State told us at that time.
Presumably, the right hon. Gentle man thought in terms of 15,000 round pegs to be fitted into 15,000 round holes, but, so far as one can see now, we have only a little more than 4,000 round pegs, although, presumably, the 15,000 round holes still exist.

Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Ramsden indicated dissent.

Mr. Reynolds: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I have heard nothing so far at Question Time or in debates to indicate that, in fact, Regular Army recruiting is greatly better than it was at the time when the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve was thought of.
On this side of the House, we hoped that the new scheme would be successful because it seemed a reasonable idea, but something has gone wrong. It has not worked anywhere near as well as the Secretary of State at that time hoped that it would. There must be some reason why the numbers are only about one-third of the number it was originally intended to recruit. Perhaps we can be told how many members of the Territorial Army actually volunteered for the reserve. Was there a screening process, or has almost everyone who volunteered been accepted? The figures are important, and, when we are considering a Bill dealing with reserves, which, we understand, is the result of a complete review, this is the sort of information which the House should have.
I can see no reason why it should be withheld because the overall number of 15,000 has been published. The numbers recruited up to June this year were published at the same time. We should have a great deal more information about the reasons for the apparent complete luck of success in recruiting for this reserve.
We discussed during the passage of the Act the effect which the creation of such a reserve would have on the Territorial Army. This is an opportunity which should have been taken to give us some idea of how the reserve has fitted in with the numbers working in the Territorial Army. I said in the debates on that Measure that I thought that it might possibly mean that if the


men who would be in the new Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, were called up, and if, later, it was necessary to embody the Territorial Army, the T.A. units would be become non-effective because skilled tradesmen who were needed in the Regular Army and who were called up beforehand would have gone out of those units. We should be given information on that matter.
I did not completely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) when she referred to the equipment for the Territorial Army. At various times during the last two years I drew the attention of the former Secretary of State to the position concerning equipment in various Territorial Army units. They have to rely largely on equipment provided for the last war and on wireless sets which still have the instructions stencilled in Russian on them which were sent out to Russia on Lend-Lease and returned to this country afterwards. However, even some of those sets have been taken from the Territorial Army during the last 18 months and sent to the Regular Army in Germany which needed replacements so that the Territorial Army was stripped of 50 per cent. of its equipment. It is difficult to see that the Territorial Army is doing the good and reliable job that it is supposed to be trained for when one realises some of the equipment available to them.
One of the main changes in the Bill is that in Clause 2 which imposes this additional liability to recall in certain circumstances up to the age of 45 on all Regular soldiers. I have grave doubts about the use of someone aged, say, 42 years, who, having been out of the Army for 20 years after completing a three-year engagement, is suddenly recalled. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley referred to the trouble which might arise from a disciplinary point of view. I would go further and say that I envisage that it would probably take almost as long to retrain a man who has been out of the Army for 20 years in the use of what would be very different equipment as it would to retrain a younger man with virtually no Army service.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that this would be calling back into

the Army men used to a life of discipline. In many cases, that may be right if a man has done 21 years in the Service and has been out for only a few years. But I do not think that that applies to a man of 42 years who has spent three years in the Regular Army. A man of 42 could have spent three years of his life in the Regular Army and, under certain circumstances, be recalled under Clause 2.
I should have thought that the fact that a man who had been a member of the Regular Army for three years between the ages of 18 and 21 had been out of the Army for 21 years would have played havoc with his general ideas of military discipline and things of that nature. If and when this reserve is created these men will not be pleased if they are called upon to deal with purely local incidents, and this would not have a good effect on the units to which they were posted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley referred to the fact that we are asking young men of 18 years to sign something which will commit them to certain responsibilities for the next 27 years. This is something at which we shall have to look very much more closely in Committee. We have other legislation coming before us, which is before another place at the moment, under which if someone signs a hire-purchase agreement he is given 48 hours in which to think about it. If that protection is to be put in comparatively simple hire-purchase agreements, we must consider protection being put into legislation of this sort for people of 18 years of age who will be signing documents committing them to certain things for the next 27 years.
We have no responsibility for this legislation or for the present manpower position in the Army. We have been told by the Secretary of State that many of the Bill's provisions will not begin to become effective for another five, six or seven years. This underlines the fact that in my opinion and, I am sure, in the opinion of my hon. Friends, it will take at least five or six years after the next General Election before whatever Government are then in office will be able to undo the havoc which has been done to the manpower and recruiting aspects and the general level of our Armed Forces during the last 12 years.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): I should, first, thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) for their kind remarks about myself. I ought, perhaps, to remind the hon. Member for Aberavon of the part of the country from which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) comes. If he remembers that, the hon. Member will realise that no further comment is needed on whatever my hon. Friend has said and particularly in the circumstances in which he said it.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, the Bill does three things. It scales down considerably the liability of those on the Army General Reserve and eventually will cut out altogether all but about 100,000 of them, Secondly, it doubles, or trebles rather, the length of liability of Section A of the existing Reserve. Thirdly, it creates an entirely new and long-term reserve of all those who, after the date of the passing of the Bill, enlist in the Regular Army. It is on this third point that most of the discussion concerning the Bill has centred during this interesting debate.
The debate has, however, given the opportunity for a quick look at the Reserve Army, which, as the hon. Member for Aberavon rightly said, we do not often discuss in the House of Commons. It has, therefore, been useful debate quite apart from the discussion purely on the matters contained in the Bill.
To deal first with the more general points about the reserves as a whole, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) appeared to take a certain amount of exception to the fact that this was the only fruit of the review of the Reserves. That is true to the extent that it is the only legislative fruit, but, of course, the position of the reserves is kept under constant watch and the shape of the Reserve as it stands, with the exception of the Army General Reserve, which, obviously, was becoming impossible, appeared fairly satisfactory.
At this point, I should say a word to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)

about ceilings. There is only one ceiling in this connection which makes any sense and that is the 60,000 which was put in this Army Reserve Act, 1962, covering all the pre-proclamation reserves. I agree with the hon. Member that the others are somewhat unintelligible. Although I have been looking at the situation closely in the five weeks that I have been at the War Office, I still do not understand them. If we can look into the points made by the hon. Member about this and find a much more intelligible way of setting out these ceilings without in any way affecting security, we will do it. Either I or my right hon. Friend will be writing to the hon. Member about this in the near future
Apart from certain specific issues in the Bill, the debate has centred generally on the rôle of the Territorial Army and on the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, or the "Ever-readies", as they are sometimes called. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East said about the rôle of the Territorial Army. It is vital to our defence plans. It is the main support in the reserve for B.A.O.R. and, as a result, plays a vital part in all our strategic planning. The importance of the Territorial Army in this respect cannot be over-estimated.
I fully realise—it has been brought forcibly home to me since I have been at the War Office—the disappointment of many members of the Territorial Army with equipment, clothing, and so on. By virtue of my office, I am chairman of the Territorial Army Advisory Council. I am meeting the Council for the first time on Wednesday and expect to hear that disappointment fairly forcibly expressed again on that occasion.
We are, of course, in difficulties in providing fully up-to-date equipment, clothing, and so on, to cover the whole of the Territorial Army. We are, however, doing our best as far as we can to bring equipment and clothing up to the requirements, and we shall continue to try to do so. But there are a lot of difficulties about this which we hope to overcome as we go along.
As I say, the fact that we have not yet been able to provide the equipment and clothing that we should wish to provide does not in any way suggest that we


regard them as second-class soldiers. They are an absolutely vital part of the whole reserve situation.

Mr. Wigg: This is a very important statement. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is now saying that the Territorial Army plays a vital part in the strategic thinking of the War Office. For a long time I have not been able to understand what is the role of the Territorial Army. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, may we take it that if we put down a Question on the Order Paper he would be good enough to make a statement in categorical terms about what is the role of the Territorial Army now and what it is planned that the role should be for the next four or five years?

Mr. Kirk: I should have to see the statement first. But I do not think that the members of the Territorial Army are in any doubt about what is their place today.
Regarding the "Ever-readies" this Bill does not cover them in any way. They are external to the thinking behind the Bill. They are a reserve entirely of their own, the only pre-Proclamation reserve of complete flexibility. I fully admit that perhaps the original ceilings contemplated for this reserve were over-optimistic. There is no question, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, North, of having 15,000 round holes and only 4,000 pegs. The number of round holes is smaller than 15,000.
Shortly after bringing in the T.A.E.R. we discovered that recruiting for the Regular Army went on rapidly in the course of 1962. As a result, the immediate need for the T.A.E.R. was lessened and we have settled down to a fairly long-term build-up. It is true that many more men have applied to join the T.A.E.R. than have been accepted. In fact, there is a small waiting list, so it may be seen that to talk about "complete failure", as the hon. Gentleman did, is to exaggerate considerably. It has not come up as rapidly as we had hoped. But nevertheless, it is there and again has a vital part to play. Above all, it has the merit of flexibility which is the most important merit in this connection.
A number of important points were made about the Bill which no doubt we shall discuss during the Committee stage.
But there is one suggestion, made by the hon. Member for Aberavon, the hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Islington, North which I should like to get absolutely right straight away. We have no intention of trying to conceal this new liability from anyone who wishes to join the Army. It is our intention that the paper given to every recruit to read before he joins the Army shall contain this liability set out as clearly as possible. We do not wish to deceive anyone. We want to make plain what is the liability, But, at the same time, it should be made clear both in this connection and with the A.G.R. that the liability is fairly remote.
This is a reserve which we are considering only for the gravest emergency. It is pretty long-term—it is called the Long-term Reserve. Nevertheless, it is true that we shall have to have the power for which we ask in the Bill to ensure that we know where the reservists are when we do need them. I will say no more about the old A.G.R., except that I should not have accepted the bet of the hon. Member for Dudley. The hon. Member for Aberavon will be relieved to hear that we always knew where he was because he is a member of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers and we keep a close watch on them.
These men will be told of this liability before they join. We do not believe—we have looked at this carefully—that this will have an adverse effect on recruiting, because of the very long-term nature of the liability. I do not think that many men when applying to join the Army consider very deeply what will happen in the event of a general war, which is, after all, what we are planning the reserve for. All of us in this House hope that this is a situation which will never come about. Therefore, we do not believe that the effect on recruiting will be very great.
I wish to say a final word about Clause 2(7), which provides for volunteers. Frankly, we do not expect to get a tremendous number of volunteers in this way. Everybody serving in the Regular Army will, however, be notified of the possibility. Those who care to volunteer may do so and will be very welcome. We thought it illogical to set up a new reserve without providing the Regular Army with an opportunity to volunteer.

Mr. Wigg: If Regular soldiers volunteer for Section A will they receive the rates of pay to which they are entitled under Section A?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, they do now and they will do. We are talking of volunteering not only for a longer period under Section A but for a longer period of service on the reserve which is unpaid; but the Regular soldiers will get their pay for Section A service if they volunteer for it.

Mr. Wigg: If they volunteer for any of the sections which are paid, may I take it that merely because they are Regular soldiers and because they volunteer they will not lose the pay?

Mr. Kirk: Not at all. They will be paid on exactly the same basis while they are in the Reserve.
I hope that I have answered the general points raised in the debate. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that we may now have the Second Reading of the Bill, knowing that we can come back to a great many of these points during the Committee stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir William Anstruther-Gray in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to navy, army and air force reserves, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session extending the operation of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act 1950 and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.—[Mr. Thorneycroft.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Legal Aid Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Thorneycroft.]

LEGAL AID BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Speaker, when I had the good fortune on Friday to catch your eye in the debate on the Bill I said that I would be brief, and 15 words later my brevity was exhausted and the debate was adjourned.
I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill as long as one offending subsection is at a later stage—I understand that the Committee stage is to be taken on the Floor of the House—removed. I make that reservation because if a Bill is passed which has one gross and glaring defect it is very often an extraordinarily long time before the defect can be removed, much longer than if the Bill is not accepted at all. That is why I am hoping to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend that his mind has moved rapidly in the direction of deleting the offending subsection.
In Clause 1(2) there appears a phrase with which I think we all agree:
An order may be made"—
against a legally-aided person—
under this section in respect of any costs if (and only if) the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that provision for those costs should be made out of public funds;
Surely that is sufficient criterion for an order for costs being made; and surely it follows that if it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that an order for costs should be made, then it is unjust and inequitable in all the circumstances that costs should be denied. That logically follows as night follows day and I do not see how the Attorney-General, with any amount of forensic skill, can argue his way out of it.
The Bill, unfortunately, goes on to make the provision that an order shall only be made not only if the court considers it just and equitable in all circumstances that provision for those costs should be made out of public funds, but also if the person who is applying for costs, or on whose behalf costs are being applied for, can satisfy the court that the unassisted party will suffer severe financial hardship unless the order is made.
In his opening speech, the Attorney-General made a number of statements of remarkably dubious accuracy. Referring to Clause 1(3,b)—dealing with hardship—he said:
This would cast a heavy burden on the taxpayer—possibly in the region of £340,000 a year—for the benefit of a small number of persons, and, ex hypothesi, for persons who would not be suffering any financial hardship…"—[Official Report, 6th December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1595.]
I would be most interested to learn the reason he has for supposing that only a small number of people are affected. Those who are affected are not only those who go into court knowing that they will not get costs even if they successfully defend themselves. A number of persons—the total cannot be accurately gauged—pay up under threat of legal action to which they have perfectly valid answers, because the damages for which they are being asked are less than the cost of defending themselves, which they would not recover—in other words, it is a form of legal blackmail. My right hon. and learned Friend should not guess that only a small number of people are affected, for that is going beyond his knowledge—and mine.
When he says
…ex hypothesi, for persons who would not be suffering any financial hardship…
that, again, is not accurate. It is not enough to say to a person in court that he would not suffer "any" financial hardship. The criterion is to be "severe" financial hardship which is a much greater degree than "any" financial hardship. This is palpably obvious. If it were necessary only to show that one had suffered "some" financial hardship this provision would not be so unfair.
My right hon. and learned Friend based part of his case on his concern to save

£340,000 a year—that, presumably, being the sum that people are paying out at the moment for successfully defending actions and not being able to get their costs against the other party. If he is really concerned to save that sum of money each year, I should have thought that, as Leader of the Bar as well as Attorney-General, he could save considerably more than that if he could persuade his legal brethren to drop the gross and putrid restrictive practice where it is impossible to hire a Queen's Counsel without hiring a junior at two-thirds of the fee for which leading Counsel is hired.
If my right hon. and learned Friend is really anxious to save the Legal Aid Scheme this cost, I would suggest that he pursues that line. Unpopular as he would be in doing so, and unpopular as I shall doubtless be for suggesting it, he might well find himself saving a sum of money considerably in excess of £340,000.
I understand that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House, in which case a number of hon. Members and hon. and learned Members who wished to speak on Friday and received no notification that the debate was to be continued today will doubtless wish to contribute. I happen to know at least one hon. and learned Member, occupying a judicial position, who has every desire to stress some points that I am making now.
Bearing in mind the very inadequate notice that has been given of this debate tonight, my right hon. and learned Friend ought not to prejudge the objections to Clause 1(3, b) from the emptiness of the benches on both sides of the House, because I suspect that he will find them very much fuller when the Committee stage is reached.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate the proposition which I have already advanced—that if it is just as equitable in all the circumstances that provision for these costs should be made out of public funds, then it cannot be other than unjust and inequitable to deny them.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne: I am glad that the time for the debate was extended to this evening, because I wanted to make some points which I could not have made in Committee. I shall try to be brief, since this is a


fairly late hour at which to resume the debate, but this difficulty in which the Government find themselves in having to extend the time is part of the price which they are having to pay for taking an extra 14 days out of the beginning of the Session. I welcome the Bill, but my complaint is not about what is in it, but what is left out. I regret that this opportunity for passing a Legal Aid Bill has not been used to extend the scope of legal aid.
First, I am very sorry that it has not been used to extend the scope of legal aid in civil cases. There are many courts and public tribunals to which legal aid does not extend, and there is many a person who may be faced with a compulsory acquisition order who may have buried his savings in his house, only to find that he has to fight for his house and cannot get legal aid. I briefly place on record my regret that this position has not been tackled.
Secondly, a grave injustice still remains in certain criminal cases. I realise that the scope of legal aid Bills has not normally been to cover costs in criminal cases. However, they have been referred to on occasions in the past and Section 18 of the 1949 Act gave directions as to the circumstances in which a defence certificate should be given. They could have been dealt with by this Bill.
My main complaint is that the successful defendant who has not been legally aided and who does not qualify for a defence certificate does not get his costs in the normal course of circumstances, even though he is acquitted. The law says, "You may have lost earnings and you may have had a great deal of worry and you may have incurred a great deal of legal expense; you are now acquitted and you are to be regarded as innocent; but you are also to pay a fine, which may be many hundreds of pounds in legal costs and this will not be refunded". That does not seem to me to be justice.
It is sometimes said that a defendant who is successful can always have a remedy for malicious prosecution, but there are very few cases in which this remedy lies. If the police have acted with perfect bona fides, but have made a mistake, having taken a course of action which at the time seemed reason-

able but which later proved wrong, for instance, a perfectly bona fide mistake as to identity, there is no remedy for the successful defendant.
It is sometimes said that most of those who are acquitted are in any event guilty. I was once told that by a former Under-Secretary at the Home Office. That is a proposition which we must utterly reject. We cannot set ourselves up as a sort of second court and say that some people may be acquitted by a jury, but that we shall nevertheless regard them as guilty in some sense or in some degree and, therefore, fine them, or accept the fact that they may have to bear a considerable fine. We must accept that people who are acquitted are entitled to be regarded as innocent. At the moment, there are two classes of innocent people. First, there are those who are legally aided and properly acquitted. Secondly, there are those who are not legally aided and who have to bear a fine and pay their legal costs.
There are two possible solutions. The first is to alter the practice of awarding costs in criminal cases. The second, and the better and simpler, solution is to award a defence certificate to all. It may be said that this would be expensive, although there would undoubtedly still be a number of wealthy clients who, when facing criminal prosecution, would prefer to pay large fancy fees to expensive counsel. Whether or not it is expensive and although the vast majority of those who face criminal prosecution do get legal aid now, it is just, in any event, that a defence certificate should be available to all, because even if a man is guilty, he should not have to face a double penalty. A man who is aided pays whatever penalty is imposed by the law, but a man who is not aided pays costs as well.
The whole basis of legal aid in civil cases has teen to restore a man to the position in which he was otherwise as far as possible, so that, under the new Bill, a man who does not get his costs will now get them. Why should we not apply this principle more widely and apply it to criminal cases as well? We cannot have justice on the cheap, which has been recognised as the whole basis of legal aid. If we try, we do not have justice. Yet there is one large range of cases in which justice is not done.
For these reasons, I believe that the Bill is too restrictive. I do not oppose it. Indeed, I welcome it as far as it goes, but I hope that the Government can find their way to early action to remedy these injustices, and I regret that they did not take the opportunity of the Bill to do so.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: Like the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), I should like to allow myself the luxury of allowing my mind to range a little wider than the contents of the Bill, but on this occasion I will confine myself to the contents.
All of us with practice in the courts are familiar with the sort of case where final costs become more important than the damages likely to be awarded. It may be said of my own branch of the profession that we are aware of costs only as a sort of long-range deterrent and that all we know about them is the form of words by which we ask for them. Nevertheless, we are aware that later on there are many cases in which the successful litigant wins only a Pyrrhic victory, because most of his advantage is taken away when it comes to costs.
Like most hon. Members, I think that the greatest hardship normally falls on the litigant who finds himself just outside the limits of the Legal Aid Scheme. The Bill does at least something for him by giving him some assistance if he has been successful, successful as a defendant that is, against an assisted plaintiff.
With regard to Clause 1(3,b), quite frequently there are borderline cases where there is a claim and counter-claim, and the question as to which party commences those proceedings is really a matter of chance. To that extent I think that the provisions of this subsection, which states that the legally assisted person must at first instance instigate proceedings, are rather narrow. I suggest that the principles of hardship which run through the whole Legal Aid Scheme should be applied so that the words "severe financial hardship" can be interpreted as being similar to those principles on which legal aid itself is awarded. This would remove the possibility that someone just short of quali-

fication for legal aid would inevitably suffer more hardship than a Bill of this sort should envisage. On Friday I listened carefully to the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend, reported in column 1594 of Hansard, but I was not fully convinced by his argument and I stick to my suggestion.
It may be thought that I am to a certain extent trespassing on the Committee stage, but perhaps my comments might be taken as some indication to my right hon. and learned Friend of the sort of matter with which I shall be concerned at that stage. Clause 2 says that regulations may be made in respect of persons in a fiduciary, representative, or official capacity. I hope that such regulations will cover a small local authority such as a parish council. Quite frequently a parish council has a low penny rate product, and a small number of ratepayers. More than half the 7,500 parish councils in this country have a penny rate product of less than £100.
At present the burden of costs in an action successfully resisted against an assisted person falls on those ratepayers. My right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt familiar with the case of the Stone Parish Council which had the large sum of £9,000 damages awarded against it. The more relevant consideration is the fact that those proceedings lasted for four years.
I should like some assurance that the regulations, if framed under this Bill, will take account of such local authorities and ratepayers where the risk is an uninsurable or unforeseeable one. Provided I get an assurance on that point, I welcome the Bill.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I rise only to say that I have read the proceedings on Friday with great interest, and that I have listened with equal interest to what has been said today. There seems to be no dispute on either side of the House that the Bill, so far as it goes, and subject to certain Committee points, is acceptable.
I do not wish to repeat what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). It seems clear that there are some Committee points of substance,


and perhaps I might mention two of them. One is with regard to the passage about severe financial hardship. It would be interesting to know what is the difference between "financial hardship" and "severe financial hardship". The other is the general exhortation to do that which is just and equitable in certain circumstances, with which we all have great sympathy, and of which we have no detailed knowledge.
I feel compassion for those who have been suffering severe oratorical hardship by not being here tonight and who will have to confine what they have to say to some Committee room, or even to this House sitting as a Committee. On the Bill there is very little more than that to be said at this stage, but I wish to say how much I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). This will not be open to us in Committee. In questions of this sort the machinery for charging the process of such a legal institution as legal aid has now become is somewhat deficient.
There is a real case for matters of law reform, whether they amount as here to reforms of procedure or to reforms of rather more than that, having more attention than they get from any Government, particularly perhaps from a Government which is just facing the horrors of an unsuccessful General Election. I wish there were means by which this kind of question could be kept under constant review, and effectively kept under review, not necessarily only by Parliamentary means. There are law reform committees, as we all know. Alas, we all know how long the products of those committees lie on some table or other before they get on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member will, of course, appreciate that there is a report from the Law Society annually on the Legal Aid Scheme, and the Law Society recommended what is in this Bill as long ago as 1958 to 1959. There is that annual report to be considered.

Mr. Mitchison: I am well aware of that, and I thank the hon. Member for reminding us all of the valuable work the Law Society does in this matter, but that does not meet the main point

raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln. I take only one of the two instances he gave. I think that there is a strong case for extending legal aid to proceedings before tribunals. I am not at all clear that that case has been properly considered, or is ever likely to be properly considered unless we can set up more machinery for the purpose.
I am well aware of the responsibilities of the Attorney-General in this House and hose of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, but they are occupied with many things and it is extremely difficult to ensure that these questions are looked at if they are examined only either by this House or by the professional bodies concerned. I am proud to be a member of the Bar, and always have been proud of it, but I think that the Bar has occasionally to remember that the community does not owe it a living. It is only by keeping the law up to date and by realising, for example, the modern importance of tribunals that this fine profession will justify its existence and possibly win some popularity.

10.24 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): With permission, I speak again in this debate in order to answer some of the points raised. I am glad that this Bill has had an almost universal welcome from those who have spoken, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and many others. Practically everyone welcomes it subject to one or two caveats more particularly in relation to Clause 1(3,b).
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering twitted the Government that in its last year before a General Election it would find it difficult to advert to law reform. He seems to have overlooked, first, that we have this Bill which is a major law reform arising from a Legal Aid Measure secondly, there is a Bill before the House to give powers to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial on new evidence becoming available, and, finally, that the Home Secretary will tell the House about his


measures for dealing with compensation for victims of crime.
In one year and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, in particular this year, for that programme of law reform to be already before the House is not too bad. In addition, there is a Private Member's Bill dealing with the order of speeches in criminal trials, which is a substantial matter in practice. The House and the Government are acute to bring about law reform, and I do not believe that more machinery means more action.
I will deal with a few of the points which have been raised. First, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport asked whether the Financial Resolution is so framed as to allow an Amendment which would increase the cost of the Bill. The answer is "Yes". The Financial Resolution will support whatever is put into the Bill in Committee or at any other stage in its progress through both Houses, but it would not allow an Amendment to give additional benefits to an assisted person, because this is a Bill which is dealing with nothing except the position of unassisted persons and it is not intended in any way to deal with the scope of the help which can be given under the legal aid scheme to assisted persons.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the judges should not have more guidance on the sort of thing which they ought to consider in respect of "just and equitable" and "severe financial hardship". It is true that costs as a general rule are entirely in the discretion of the court, and the phrase that the award should be "whatever is just and equitable" is a hallowed phrase indicating to the court that it must do what it thinks right and has as wide a discretion as it is possible to have. Perhaps in the connotation of this Bill it might also draw the attention of the court to the fact that it has to take into account that any award that it makes will be coming out of public funds, not merely out of the pocket of one party or another, not for the benefit of one party or for the disadvantage of another, but that it may well be the public funds which will have to bear the burden of any Order which it makes.
I submit to the House that it is much better to leave it to the court to exer-

cise a wide discretion. If we try to tie its hands or to give it directions or to indicate circumstances that it ought to take into account, the usual result is that the court thinks that that is the totality of the direction and that a large number of other things ought not to be considered. Once we cease to give the court a wide discretion and try to limit it in any way, we find that this produces consequences which are unexpected and perhaps undesirable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the Bill should not state what sort of things the court should take into account in deciding whether there is severe financial hardship. The issue there is whether there will be severe financial hardship to the unassisted litigant. This is the relevant question. It is only hardship to him which is relevant. To specify details as to what the court ought to consider in the context of that question is likely to be more limiting and unhelpful than to give the court a fairly wide discretion to take into consideration all the circumstances and to answer the simple question whether the unassisted litigant who has been successful will or will not in all the circumstances suffer severe financial hardship.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, "When will an unassisted party get his costs and might he have to wait a long time for them?" Unless the court at first instance says that costs shall not be taxed until after an appeal or the time for an appeal has run out, there is nothing to prevent the winning party in an ordinary case who is awarded costs at first instance, where both sides are unassisted, from having his costs taxed and recovering them.
In practice, however, it is common for the parties not to have their bills of costs taxed until the appeal has been heard or the time for appealing has run out. It does not usually take more than five or six months before an appeal is heard by the Court of Appeal at the present time. If a case goes to the House of Lords it is common for the costs incurred in the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal to be taxed and paid after judgment in the Court of Appeal.
It follows that the unassisted party in whose favour an order is made under the


Bill may have to wait longer for his costs to be paid than he would had he sued another unassisted party. But if the case goes only to the Court of Appeal and he has to wait six months for his costs, he will merely be conforming to the common practice and be no worse off. It is only the unusual case which goes to the House of Lords where he will be worse off than if both parties had been unassisted. In such cases he will almost certainly have to wait longer than if he were opposed by an unassisted party.
The reason is that it is not considered wise or safe to pay out of public funds a sum of money which should never have been paid out and which might not be recoverable. It is for this reason only that the payment cannot be made until the whole of the proceedings have been concluded. However, this is really a different point and one which we can consider in Committee.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what is to happen if a person who is sued puts in a counter claim in which he is successful. That can be dealt with under the regulations which may determine which of the proceedings shall be regarded as those begun by an unassisted person and in which he is a defendant. They raise difficult problems of practice and procedure which may be altered by the rules of the court. There is the question of the counter-claim, the third party proceedings and interpleader proceedings and cross-petitions in divorce.
While it would be possible to legislate on the practice of the court as at today and to provide in the Bill or in a Schedule to it for every circumstance of every form of proceedings which might be taken in all circumstances, it was thought that it would be desirable that this should be done by regulations which, after all, have to be brought to this House and, I would remind hon. Members, are under the control of this House, and which may more conveniently alter the practice or procedure of the court.

Mr. Graham Page: I assume that there is no intention, under Clause 2(1,a), of selecting causes of action to be included or excluded under the definition of separate proceedings?

The Attorney-General: I understand that there is no intention of segregating different types of proceedings. It is the

procedure which is to be separated, but I will certainly consider that matter and let my hon. Friend know if my answer is not correct. However, I understand that there is no intention of segregating particular causes of action from other causes of action.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it is not better to put in the Bill a provision concerning the cost of unassisted litigants who are acting in a fiduciary representative or official capacity. I suppose that it could be put into the Bill, but it would be an enormously lengthy proceeding to do so. It would, it was thought, throw the Bill very much out of balance. It would have to be seen that every case was covered and if it was found that there was a casus omissus, or additional cases that should be taken in, it would then be necessary to come back to the House to deal with and amend the Bill.
The circumstances in which there can arise this problem of the fiduciary representative or official litigant who is unassisted will be numerous and it is thought that it will only be as a result of experience that we will be able to see the full import of what is involved in these cases. They will not be very numerous and they are not a very major part of the cases of unassisted successful litigants. They are important to the persons concerned, but to have put the whole of a code of directions into the Bill, or in a Schedule to it, would, it is thought, have, in the end, been an inconvenience and better dealt with by regulation. However, if any hon. Member likes to put down a Schedule in Committee as to every way they should be dealt with then no doubt the Government will consider how comprehensive or satisfactory it is.
I come now to the major point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others about the expression "severe financial hardship". This is a major point of criticism, and I agree with all those who have said that, on Second Reading, we ought to discuss the matter fully. I am grateful for all that has been said, and I shall draw the comments of all who have spoken to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor so that he may consider the question before we reach the Committee


stage. It is an advantage that we have had the opportunity for these views to be expressed.
One comes back in the end to the question whether we are to pay all the costs of every successful unassisted litigant, including insurance companies and those to whom the amount of the costs of a county court action make not the slightest difference. The total effect of paying the whole of those costs in every circumstance would be to put a very heavy burden upon public funds and would, as I said initially, put the successful unassisted litigant in a far stronger position than if he had been sued by an impecunious person who happened not to have legal aid, because he would be guaranteed his costs. Therefore, there must be some division.
As the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) said on Friday, merely to say "hardship" is insufficient because every payment of costs out of one's own pocket is, in a sense, a hardship. To say "financial hardship" is, in my submission to the House, to add very little more, except that this is a financial question. One could imagine a formula being devised to the effect that, if the total amount one had to pay amounted to more than one-fifth of one's net income or one-fifth of one's capital, or more than a total of one-fifth of both, then one should have help. On some such basis, one might say that a person coming within the financial formula should have his costs and a person not coming within it should not. However, this would probably lead to great complication. We should have to establish a complete code covering everything which had to be taken into account.
It has been thought better to use a formula which is quite general and which will give wide discretion to the court because these are all matters of degree. At one end, we start with the very rich man or enormously rich corporation which has a bill of costs of £25 or £50 in the county court which makes not the slightest difference. At the other end, we have the class of person referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Walder), the person who is just outside legal aid but who has very few resources indeed and to whom a bill of £50 might make a very great difference.
It is, therefore, difficult to take into account every case and legislate precisely for exactly who is to be and who is not to be on one side of the line or the other. The formula which has been adopted, therefore, to assist the successful unassisted litigant under the scheme should be fairly restricted to deal with cases of real hardship.
My noble Friend considered whether he should use the expression "exceptional hardship" which is used in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. There is the expression "greater hardship" which is used in the Rent Act. There is "undue hardship" used in the Arbitration Act. Also, there is the expression "substantial hardship". "Substantial hardship" was rejected because it is regarded as an inappropriate term to use in relation to matrimonial proceedings as it may be said that there is always a substantial hardship if a wife brings unfounded charges against her husband, who succeeds in his defence but who, unless she has a separate estate, does not recover his costs and may have to pay hers.
The courts should have fairly wide discretion. It is essential that they should be given an indication that, at the inception of the scheme at least, it should be the cases of real hardship that are being dealt with. This is why the phrase "severe financial hardship" has been chosen. As I have said, however, I will draw to my noble Friend's attention all that has been said about this in the course of the debate and, no doubt, we shall return to this in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal, not with the Government's intentions over other matters, but over the matter which I put to him: that is, whether they have it in mind to extend legal aid to tribunals?

The Attorney-General: I was coming to that.
The extension of legal aid for assisted persons is outside the scope of the Bill, because it deals with the provisions about who shall be assisted. To deal, however, with that point and with the point raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), the Legal Aid Act provides that the Lord Chancellor


can by regulation extend legal aid, at least to courts, and there may be a power to extend it to tribunals. Section 1(3) of the 1949 Act enables legal aid for assisted persons to be extended by regulation, very widely indeed.
That, however, is outside the scope of the Bill and, no doubt, on another occasion, if the hon. and learned Member wishes an answer, he will put down a Question and allow time for a considered answer to be given to the point. As I have said, that was the main point raised against the Bill. I have no doubt that we shall return to it in Committee. I look forward to seeing the proposals of all those who would like to improve on the formula which the Government have used and the Government will, of course, consider everything that is said then as well as today.
The point was raised very fairly by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, that part of the cost of all the legal aid is the position of the Bar and the way that its members operate. It may not be generally known, although the fact has been published, that the Bar is itself considering actively what can be done about these matters. It has set up a committee of its own, under Mr. Gerald Gardiner, and comprising others of its members, to make recommendations to the Bar Council and to the Bar generally about what should be done concerning the circuit rule and a number of other matters. It is, therefore, actively engaging upon that matter. That is a general question, and the Bill deals solely with the point as to the unassisted litigant.
While a number of other points have been raised, they were to a great extent Committee points. If I have not dealt with any of them, perhaps hon. Members who have raised them will write to me and I will endeavour to deal with them. As the principle of the Bill is generally accepted, I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the form of the Bill applies principally to people who are defending actions against legal-aided persons, among others, the effect of it also carries over to people who are deciding whether

to defend an action brought against them and who, under the existing system and the Bill as published, would in many cases agree to pay damages for which they were not liable rather than submit to the costs of successfully defending the action?
The Attorney-General: Certainly; of course. That is quite right. One of the risks of litigation is whether a person may win but get no costs. The effect of the Bill will be that people will know that if it is a very heavy action, of the Auten v. Rayner type, and they have few funds, they will almost certainly, if they win, get their costs out of the Legal Aid Fund. Others will know quite well that they have no chance at all and there will be some who will not be certain one way or other whether they will, and they will have to make an estimate of their chances of getting anything out of the fund.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

Committee Tomorrow.

LEGAL AID [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Sessior to provide for the payment out of the legal aid funds of costs incurred by successful opponents of legally aided litigants, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to meet any increased charge falling on the Legal Aid Fund or the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund by reason of any provision of the said Act enabling a court which decides proceedings against a legally aided party and in favour of a party not receiving legal aid to order the payment out of the appropriate legal aid fund of costs incurred in those proceedings by the party not receiving legal aid.—[The, Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

PORT OF BLYTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The port of Blyth is as old as coal itself. It has handled it for export to other parts for about 600 years. In 1961, Blyth's coal exporting record of more than 6,800,000 tons and the present annual total of approaching 6 million tons establish its claim to the title of the premier coal port not only of Britain but of Europe.
From 13 coal shipping points in the harbour during that record-breaking year coal was shipped to Germany, Denmark and other European countries and to ports in the United Kingdom, a considerable portion going to power stations in the South. In fact, it would be true to state that the proverb should now be about taking coals to Blyth rather than to Newcastle.
Since the days when workable coal seams and navigable water laid the foundations of South-East Northumberland's economic significance, the area has reflected many changes in mining, transport and shipping and in the overall pattern of the British economy itself. It would be true to say that both the river and the port of Blyth have moved with the times. The shipyard, which the Parliamentary Secretary has visited and knows very well indeed, has a proud record of its own. In the shipbreaking yard we receive vessels which have given service, break them up and return them to new uses. The seats in the chairs on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament had their origin in that shipbreaking yard.
We also have on the river the shipyard which created the first Ark Royal in 1914 and today is adapting itself to the changes of the industry. The pilot age and port facilities are in themselves excellent. On the question of pilot age, I believe that the official figures clearly show that the number of vessels and tonnage handled in Blyth per pilot rank among the highest in the country.
Therefore, we are dealing with a port built on coal, that knows how to handle it as no other port in Britain or Europe

is capable of doing, and which will continue to do so despite the changes in the coal trade that the passing years may bring. While I am concentrating on this port in my own constituency, I believe, nevertheless, that this also concerns other ports that have been excluded from the Rochdale Report.
A spokesman for the National Coal Board said earlier this year:
The Port of Blyth is very important to us—not only for exports but for increasing coal shipments to the South.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) pointed out during the Second Reading of the Harbours Bill last week, Blyth is an example of a port where the National Coal Board has its own appliances and employs its own tippers and teemers.
We are now in the closing month of this year and perhaps I may be allowed to recall the severe winter we experienced. It was the supreme test for Blyth and its people. During the 15 weeks of intensive frost, from 3rd December, 1962, to 16th March this year, about 1,373,000 tons of coal were shipped from the port, a weekly average of about 91,595 tons. This was a drain on the economy of the port, and would have been on any other, small or large. It also had an effect on the country's economy because the efficiency of the port's performance reflected itself in the position in the South, the Midlands and elsewhere.
But the additional cost of emergency working and the provision of specialised equipment to deal with frozen coal had to be borne by the port itself. This is where we begin to see the defects of the Rochdale Report, because, while its recommendations will assist the large general ports, it leaves what are termed the smaller ports to justify themselves economically. This is causing concern to the communities of these small ports.
An editorial in last week's Blyth News summed up the views of that community in this matter. It said:
There was no mention of the port in the Rochdale Committee Report.
None either in the Hailsham Report, and that was even more distressing.
It is difficult not to feel that the designation of the North-East some years ago, as


'The Land of the Three Rivers'—once again excluding Blyth—has had a detrimental influence on subsequent aid for development plans.
Yet the port must play an important role in the economic revival of the area. It must keep pace with industrial developments which, thankfully, are now gathering pace in East Northumberland.
A lot has been said recently about Government help for the North-East having to be linked with local initiative and determination, which is fair enough.
Why, then, has there been so little apparent encouragement for progressive plans for a port which is of national as well as local importance?
It is because of the changing pattern of the area, as well as the changing pattern of the requirements of the port itself, that we feel that the Ministry should look at this matter. The port of Blyth, as the editorial says, is essential to the national economy and to the whole of South-East Northumberland. The new town of Cramlington, the new industries that will one day move into Blyth and Seaton Delaval, coupled with expansion in Bedlington centred on one of the largest power stations in the country, gives a potential industrial area requiring a port in its own right.
Apart from these, facilities improved in that direction would relieve the traffic congestion on the roads leading to other parts of the area, and would, we believe, prove beneficial to the North-East as a whole, and of course, this is all tied up to a considerable extent with the national economy.
That, roughly, is the background pattern of the port and its development and its potentiality for the future, and that is why we feel it right at this stage to have a categorical assurance from the Ministry that no powers to prohibit harbour development will be exercised, because any wide powers of control could restrict the development of Blyth and other ports in Britain excluded from the Rochdale Report.
At the risk of taking the words out of their context—and I say this in advance to the Parliamentary Secretary—I was interested in his closing speech on the Second Reading of the Harbours Bill when he mentioned this question of the future development of ports and the information that we have of the areas that they supply and service.
The hon. Gentleman said in col. 1480:
Neither we nor the ports themselves have nearly enough information at present about the flow of traffic through the ports, and only when this question has been collected and analysed will it be possible to begin to formulate a national ports plan. I do not think that any hon. Member could question the need to consider port development as a matter of national as well as local concern."—[Official Report, 5th December 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1480.]
I feel that that seems to be the situation perfectly at the moment. Even now is possibly a little too early to fit the ports of Britain into a permanent, final pattern. Around many of the ports, such as I have described in relation to Blyth, new industrial changes are taking place. The position of the country and its industries is changing, and even the location of industry—as well as the type of industry—is subject to changes and fluctuations in the months and years that lie ahead.
We feel rather that encouragement should be given to assist in the development of general cargo shipments, with a detailed examination of the industrial requirements of the areas covered by these ports We live in a rapidly changing society, and about the only permanency that we have is the inherent and readily adaptable skill of our workpeople. In relation to the ports of Britain—and, again, I speak of the one of which I have most knowledge—this skill and "know-how" has been built up over generations.
Now is the time, when there is so much talk of ports large and small, and the development of harbours, and a national and local ports plan, that we ask for encouragement in this matter. Let this encouragement be given not only for Blyth's own betterment, but also for the betterment of the North-East as a whole, and of the nation's economy.

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) on his good fortune in having had the opportunity this evening to explain so clearly the problems and prospects of the port of Blyth.
I should like, at the outset, to allay any fears which the hon. Member may have had that the National Ports Council


will not be concerned with the smaller ports. It is true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that the smaller ports were excluded from the terms of reference of the Rochdale Committee. That was because the quickest way to make an assessment of the adequacy of our port facilities as a whole was to concentrate on the major ports. That has now been done and, as a result, we have set up the National Ports Council; but the Council's terms of reference are different from those of the Rochdale Committee. They are not limited to the major ports, but cover all ports, large and small. I can, therefore, assure the hon. Member that there will be no danger of Blyth, or any other small port, being overlooked by the Council.
Perhaps I should tell the hon. Member that I have studied with considerable interest the proposals for development which were recently submitted to my right hon. Friend's Department by the commissioners of the port of Blyth. That was done, as I expect the hon. Member knows, in response to a general request which we made to all ports to let us have their proposals so that we could send them all to the National Ports Council. Without prejudging the questions which would fall in due course to be considered by the Council, I can say at once that, personally, I was most impressed with the foresight and imagination which the commissioners have shown in drawing up these proposals and with the realistic approach which they have adopted towards the commercial prospects and financing of the proposed developments.
We have only just debated the effect which the Harbours Bill will have on port development, if it reaches the Statute Book in its present form. I know that in the course of that debate a number of hon. Members expressed concern lest the setting up of the Council should in any way inhibit the development of the small ports, as the hon. Member has just done. I can only hope that what my right hon. Friend and I said in the debate will in due course be studied and will allay some of those fears. The national ports plan will be concerned only with major schemes of national importance to try to ensure that major developments are carried out at the right place and at the

right time and without any unnecessary duplication of effort or resources.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot define in precise terms this evening which schemes, or kinds of schemes, will require the Minister's approval, or be considered by the Council when making the national plan. That is obviously something which is still to be discussed and agreed; but it is fairly clear, just to give an example, that a proposal for, say, an oil terminal at a cost of about £10 million would count as a major development, whereas, in the other extreme, a provision for, say, oil fuel bunkering facilities at a cost of less than £100,000 would be hardly likely to do so.
I want to emphasise three things. First, the part which the small ports have to play must and will be taken into account when drawing up the national plan. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Council is ignorant of the vital job which is done by the small ports, as has often been said. Nor have they any prejudice against them. If there is a major project in a small port, it will be considered on its merits and demerits and not more and not less sympathetically than a project in a big port.
Secondly, there is no intention to interfere with the normal development of the small ports. After all, for the most part development of the smaller ports will not affect the national plan in the sense of affecting the basic disposition of port facilities as a whole, and I repeat that there is no intention to inhibit local initiative and enterprise.
Thirdly, the Harbours Bill will benefit small as much as larger ports. The small ports, for example, will be able to apply for loans at Government interest rates. They will be freed from outdated restrictions on their ability to fix charges. Above all, the provisions that we have made in the Bill for the Minister to make harbour revision and empowerment orders will be especially valuable to ports which might be deterred from revising their existing powers or from seeking new ones by the cost of promoting a Private Bill.
From what I said earlier in my speech, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot express any views on the merits of the proposals which the


Blyth commissioners have submitted, and that I can deal with them only in the most general terms. It would not be right to try to do more than that at this stage.
One of the things they seek to achieve, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an expansion of trade in general cargo. In particular, I understand that they hope to derive increased traffic from the new town of Cramlington. The Tyne, which already has extensive facilities for general cargo, is very close at hand—I suppose uncomfortably close at hand from the point of view of the Blyth Harbour Commissioners. I am not saying that Blyth will be unable to secure some of this trade—that will depend on the enterprise of the commissioners. I merely say that they would be unwise to count too much on it with the Tyne so close.
It may be that Blyth will have to continue to depend primarily on its coal trade, as it has done in the past. I know there has been anxiety that the trade may decline from its present level of about 5 million tons a year to 3 million tons in 1965. We understand, however, from the National Coal Board that its general estimate is that the minimum will not fall below 4 million tons, at any rate for the next few years. Although this is still quite a large reduction, I hope that what is left will enable the port to continue to pay its way.
I understand that a working party of the Coal Board, the Railways Board, and the Blyth Harbour Commissioners, is currently considering plans for general modernisation and for concentration of the coaling facilities. In the proposals that we have received from the commissioners I see that they envisage the expenditure of several million pounds. What development eventually takes place must obviously depend on what the working party decides. I only say that, as with any other major development, it is vital that plans for development should be closely linked with the needs of industry itself, and I am sure that the Commissioners are well aware of this fact.
Finally, I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman might have been concerned

that the Government's plans for regional development in the North-East might have an adverse effect on development districts like Blyth which are not included in the growth area, but in that respect perhaps I can assure him, and, I hope, his constituents, by repeating what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade said last week during the debate on regional development. He said:
I know that there are hon. Members whose constituencies lie outside the growth zone in the North-East who are anxious about the prospects for employment in them, and I ask them to recognise two things when we examine this concept. The first is that the extra effort which we are putting into the growth zone will be beneficial to the whole region. The prosperity which is created in it will undoubtedly spread outwards to the surrounding places in the same area and region. The second is that the White Paper takes nothing away from places outside the growth zones which they have already…they have all the inducements which are available to the development districts. The development districts will continue to enjoy the benefits of free depreciation and assistance under the Local Employment Acts."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1963; Vol. 685, c. 989.]
I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the disadvantages he may feel from the fact that Blyth lies outside the growth zone will not damage the prospects of the port. When the national ports plan is formulated, the special needs of the development districts will be kept very much in mind. There will be a continuous and detailed interchange of views between the National Ports Council and my right hon. Friend. The Ministry of Transport will, naturally, keep the Council advised on all the Government plans which need to be taken into account in drawing up the national plan or in considering individual schemes.
I hope that what I have said tonight will go some way in reassuring the hon. Member and everyone concerned with the future of the smaller ports that what we are doing to implement the Rochdale Report should be only to their advantage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock